" ^ ••* 



•V 



'. ■'^, .-^^ ^'/ '-^, 









^^. 






^,^^^^^ 



^ V 



■^»»^^'': 



^: ^ - - 



V S^;^^ s 















''^iyr^v 













'^- 



:>. .^^ 



- \- 



^t. V^ 









<s. 



5^ ^ 




" .0 



/^. -^fe: 






.^^ -^^^ 



'%<^ 
<^% 



.S"' % 



.V c/>. 









^A V' 



':%; 



ri^ ^ 






-^:^^; 



I#^ 










AN 



EXAMINATION 



OP CERTAIN 



PROCBEBINGJS ANB PRINCIPIiES 



OF 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 



CALLED QUAKERS. 



BY ELISHA BATES. 



Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever thing's are 
honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, 
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; 
if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these 
things. Phil.iv.8. , „ --— - 




ST. CLAIRSVILLE: 

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY HORTON J. HOWARD. 

1837. 



t> 



INTRODUCTION. 

In presenting the following worlc to the notice of the 
Christian public, it is necessary to remark, that the subjects 
have an intimate relation to the common doctrines of our 
holy religion. Had the proceedings of the Society of 
Friends in my case, related to me alone, I never should 
have offered a history of them to the world. 

The case ho-wever is widely different from this. It is a 
tissue of the most arbitrary and oppressive measures, first 
by private influence, and then by unauthorized Church 
Power, to destroy the religious character, and the religious 
rights of an individual. But while an individual was made 
the object of an unexampled course of persecution for 
years, it is a fact, well known to the parties, that there is a 
large number of persons in the Society of Friends, who 
are menaced by these proceedings. Thus the case is found 
to affect not merely one but many. The cause, too, is not 
o[a,private, but ofa^public character. It is not for offences, 
disturbing the public peace, nor endangering the happi- 
ness of men . It is not for letting down the authority of the 
Word of God, or any of the doctrines contained in it. It 
is for recurring to the Holy Scriptures, as a divinely au- 
thorized record of the will of God ; and maintaining that 
the Apostles of the Lord Jesus were both commissioned by 
Him, and qualified by the Holy Ghost, to establish a sys- 
tem of Faith and Practice, in perfect accordance with the 
will of God, and binding on men to the latest generations. 

At a time when, in the Dispensations of Providence, 
Gospel light is spreading in a most remarkable manner in 
the earth — -when religious enquiry is awakened, not only 
in Christendom, but in the Heathen parts of the world, 
and the Holy Scriptures are sought and read in regions. 



Vr INTRODUCTION. 

where the grossest darkness, and the strongest prejudices 
had for ages prevailed — one single Society, admired for 
the mildness of its manners, is found to be struggling to shut 
out the light which is breaking in upon it from heaven — 
alarmed at the increasing attention to the Bible among its 
members — opposing the plain and undeniable doctrines it 
contains — letting down the authority of the Apostles — 
making their practice, a ground of disownment — and con- 
tending for sentiments and practices which marked the his- 
tory of its Founders, from v/ hich common decency must re- 
coil. 

Does this statement surprise the reader? I intreat his 
patience, and it will be exemplefied, even beyond his first 
impressions. 

The doctrines which have been brought into discussion, 
in the recent proceedings of the Society of Friends, are of 
the most deeply interesting character, and those which de- 
mand the close and practical attention of every Christian. 
The perusal of the work, on this ground, may therefore be 
attended with advantage. 

But there is another point of view, in which the subject 
demands the attention of Christians of all denominations. 
Christianity is a system of universal benevolence. It 
prompts its possessors to seek the good of all ; and to spread 
around, the light and the blessings of the. Gospel. The 
consistent believer in the Lord Jesus, cannot feel indiffer- 
ent to the errors, and the dangers, in which his fellow crea- 
tures are envolved. It is one and the same spring of heav- 
enly feeling, from which he derives the admiration of the 
goodness of God, the joy and peace of believing, and the 
ardent desire that others, as vfell as himself, maybe deliver* 
ed from spiritual bondage, and made heirs of an eternal in- 
heritance in heaven. 

The Christian public, therefore, cannot feel indifferent 
to the state of a Society, like that of the Friends. There 
should be a lively solicitude, in the mind of every one that 



INTRODUCTION. V 

loves the Lord Jesus, that the members of tliis Society 
should abandon every sentiment, and every custom, which 
obstructs, in any degree, the fall and heart-felt adoption of 
the doctrines of the Apostles,- who preached the Gospel 
with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. This solici- 
tude, not merely arising from a love for the doctrines of the 
Apostles, but with a deep sense of their divine authority, 
as coming from God himself, points to the present and 
eternal happiness of those who rriay ha-ve been entangled 
in opinions and practices, at variance with those which are 
written for the instruction and correction of succeeding 
ages. 

The nature of the case demands a concise history of the 
events, connected with the controversy in which I have 
beeninvolved with the Society of Friends. In addition to 
this, it will be necessary to examine the charges which have 
been brought against me, and show the depa^rture from up- 
rightness — from the rules of the Discipline, and from the 
doctrines of Christianity, which have been made in those 
proceedings. 

It will be proper also, in defence of myself and of the 
Truth, for which I have been persecuted, to show that the 
Society of Friends,is most imperiousiy called upon to make 
a reformation in practice, and an expurgation of their ac- 
credited writings, in matters of Fundamental importance. 
I shall show that the Early Friends and their writings can- 
not be relied on, as conclusive authority in m.atters of Faith 
and Practice, but that sentiments lie sca,ttered through 
their works, which have been productive of the most danger- 
ous errors, and which, so long as they are recognized, char- 
acterize the Society as unsound in the- Fundamentals of re- 
ligion. I shall show that these things are utterly irrecon- 
cileable to the sound declarations which have been made 
by the Society on the same points, and that to ixtain error, 
is to abandon Truth. 

As some attacks have been ma.de upon nic in print, I 



V£ INTRODUCTION. 

think it proper to review such publications, so far as they 
are at all entitled to notice. 

And finally, it will be proper, in the conclusion, to correct 
some of my own past errors, contained in the work called 
"The Doctrines of Friends," and give my present views of 
certain doctrines, treated on, in that work. 

To understand the proceedings of the Friends, in the pros- 
ecutions they have carried on, it is necessary to give a brief 
sketch of the origin of the Society, and the system of Church 
government, which it has established. 

The Society was founded by George Fox, about the 
year 1647, for at that time, the first meetings appear lo 
have been formed. 

G. Fox was born in lG2i. In early life, he appears to 
have been of a remarkably grave and religious turn of 
mind. His sense of moral obligation appears to have 
been acute; and his state of mind was strongly marked with 
trouble^ in his religious exercises. 

His father was a member of the Church of England, and 
a weaver by trade. George was put apprentice to a shoe- 
maker, and Was considerably imployed in keeping sheep. 
His opportunities of education appear to have been ex- 
tremely limited, though it may be fairly inferred, that in 
the course of his life, his reading was considerable. It 
has been said b}^ some friends, that he had acquired some 
knowledge of the Hebre^\^ language, and it is a curious 
fact, that in one of his pieces in the Book called Doctrinals, 
p. 45(3, he (or his friends for him) has actual!)^ introduced 
a quotation in Grcek^ v/hich he undertakes to explain. I 
liave my doubts however, whether he did understand any 
thing of either of those languages or not. His knowledge 
of the English tongue was certainly extremely defective — 
though from residing, iind from conversation with educated 
persons, it must be supposed that he could generally ex« 
press himself, so as to convey the idea which he intended. 

At the age of nineteen he left his master, and his rela- 



INTEODUCTIOM. VII 

tives and friends, as he supposed, bj a divine command^ and 
travelled from place to place in great trouble of mind.— 
These troubles continued several years; during which, his 
apprehensions of having extraordinary revelations, in- 
creased. Under these impressions, he supposed that he 
had revelations of doctrines without the help of any man, 
book or writing. He supposed that he was in the same 
spirit and power that the apostles and prophets were in, — 
that he had come up, through the flaming sword, into the 
Paradise of God — and into the st?vte that Adam was in be- 
fore he fell— that the creation v/as opened to him — and he 
was at a stand in his mind, whether he would not practice 
medicine for the good of mankind, seeing the nature and 
virtues of the creatures v/ere so opened to him by the Lord. 
If he was not mistaken in respect to these oj^enings, it 
mustj^e regarded as an irretrievable loss to science, as well 
as a great neglect of an extraordinary Revelation^ that he 
has left no record of the nature and virtues of the creatures. 
From the condition of Adam, he writes, he was taken up 
in Spirit, "to see into another or more steadfast state than 
Adam's in innocency, even into a state in Christ Jesus that 
should never fall."' Journal, Part 1, p. 53. On the same 
subject he says; "Moreover, the Lord God let me see 
(when I was brought up into his Image, in righteousness 
and Holiness, and into the Paradise of God) the state, how 
Adam was made a living soul: And also the stature of 
Christ, the mystery that had been hid from ages and gen= 
erations, which things are hard to be uttered, and cannot 
be borne by many. For of all the sects in Christendom 
(so called) that I discoursed withal, I found none, that 
could bear to be told, that any should come to Adam's 
perfection, into that image of God, and righteousness and 
holiness that Adam was in before he fell; to be so clear 
and pure without sin, as he was. Therefore, how should 
they be able to bear being told, that any should grow up 
to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ, when 



Vlir l.M'RODLCTION. 



they cannot bear to hear that an}^ shall come whilst up- 
on earth, into the same power and spirit that the Pro- 
phets and Apostles were in? Though it be a certain truth, 
thcit none can understand, their writings aright, without 
the same spirit, by wdiich they were w^^itten." Journal, 
Part 1 p. 59, 60.^ 

The reader wall observe here, that the assumption of 
being in the state which Adam was in, before he fell, is un- 
equivocal. And I leave every one to judge for himself, 
whether G. F. did not speak of coming to the measure of 
the stature of the fulness of Christ, in the same sense, in 
which he spake of coming into the. state that Adam was 
in, before he fell? It was something so far beyond the 
state of Adam before the. fall, and also beyond being in the 
same power and spirit that the Prophets and Apostles were 
in, that as the attainment to these states could not be be- 
lieved, he does not admire that many could not hear to be 
told the other. I ask then what was it, that was so far be- 
3'ond the state of Adam before he fell, and beyond being in 
the same Power and Spirit that the Prophets and Apostles 
were in, but the character or state of Jesus Christ? 

He claimed for his own communications, the title of 
"the w^ord of the Lord," "the word of God," "the word 
of the Lord God," while he strenuously denied these 
terms to the Holy Scriptures. 

He professed to have visions^ to hear voices^ to have 
seen an Angel, to have wrought miracles, of various 
kinds — healing the sick — restoring the disabled — casting 
out devils, &c.- — Speaking of preaching through a town 
on a market day, he says — "And so dreadful was the 
power of God that was upon me, that the people flew^ 
like chaff before me into their houses," Journal, Part 1 . 
p. 153. He relates that at one place he was taken for 



*In the Friends' Library this passage is quoted, but with onii?- 
eions, and changes of sundry words, 



INTRODUCTION. IX 

an Angel or Spirit; and on others that the people thought 
the house shook where they were. 

In sueh a time of excitement the Society was formed. 
And the more the history of its origin is examined, the 
more evident it v>'ill appear, that an unusual excitement 
in regard to the character and supernatural qualifications 
of G. Fox, contributed to the rapid increase of its mem- 
bers. That many of the new" converts were wild and 
extravagant in their views, is proved by the worship 
which was offered to James Naylor; the adoration and 
titles of Deity which were given to George Fox"^ — and 
by the numbers that went naked in streets and other 
public places, as signs, — by the great opposition which 
was m.ade ta the establishment of any system of Church 
Government, on the plea of its being superceded by the 
teaching of the Spirit to csch individual; and by many 
other circumstances which might be mentioned. 

From the number of females which signed Petitions 
to Parliament in the year 1659^ it would seem that at 
that time,- the whole number of members could not have 
been less than 30,000. The present number in Great 
Britain is estimated at 18,000. The greatest accession 
of numbers was certainly during a few of the first years 
of George Fox's ministry; and before any system of 
Church Government was established. 

Among the peculiarities which first distinguished the 
new sect, were, 

An extraordinary profession of revelation, and this 
independent of the Scriptures. 

A mystical view of the Blood of Christ, which was sup- 
posed to be in all men. Being in a great meeting, where 
they were discoursing of the Blood of Christ, G, F. says: 



*George Richardson, a zealous Conservative, and advocate of G. 
F.; fully concedes that this delusion was the same in both cases, 
and that it prevailed to a considerable extent in the Society. But 
of this I shall say more hereafter. 
B 



X INTKODUCTlOJi. 

"And I cried out, among them, and said: '•Do ye not see the 
blood of Christ 2 See it in your hearts^ to sprinkle your hearts 
and consciences from dead zvorlcs, to serve the living God,"* For 
I saw it, the Blood of the New Covenant, how it came 
into the heart. This startled the Professors, who would 
have the Blood only without them, and not in them." 
Journal, Part 1, p. 49. 

The disuse of the usual modes of salutation, and the 
use of the singular pronouns, when but one person was 
spoken to. This rested upon a special revelation to 
George Fox. The account v^hich be gave of the matter 
is as follows: 

"Moreover, when the Lord sent me forth into the 
world, he forbad me to put off my hat to any, high or 
low. And I was required to Thee and Thou all men and 
women, without respect to rich or poor, great or small. 
And as I travelled up and down, I was not to bid people 
Good Morrow^ or Good Evening ; neither might I Bow or 
scrape with my Leg, ilnd this made the sects and pro- 
fessors rage." Journal, Part 1, p. 63. 

To preach freely without stipend,"^ and severely to 
censure those who did not. 

To refuse to take an Oath, as being contrary to the 
express command of Christ. 

To make silence a prominent part of pubHc worship. 

It does not appear, however, that George Fox and the 
leading ministers, in the first formation of t\\G Society^ 
were very frequently in the practice of silence, in public 
meetings. And yet it was made quite remarkable. The 
first notice which I find of it in the Journal of G. F.. was 
in the year 1651, or four years after i\\^ Society was 



* I use the word stipend, for it does not appear that G. F. was 
averse to receiving aid from those who freely g^ve it. For he was 
liberally supported by his friends, and died possessed of some con- 
siderable estate — one item, being upwards of 1000 acres of land, not 
far from Philadelphia, which w^s given to him by Wm. Penn. 



r??TRODUCTION, XI 

formed. The account which is given of it, is remarka- 
ble. 

"I passed oji to another town, where there was a great 
meeting, and the old Priest before mentioned went along 
with me; and there came professors of several sorts to it. 
Now I sat on a Haystack, and spake nothing for several 
hours; for I was to famish them from words. And the 
professors would ever and anon be speaking to the old 
Priest, and asking him when I would begin? and when I 
would speak? And he bad them wait; and told them. 
That the people waited upon Christ a long time before he 
spake.'' Journal, Part L p, 123. 

This was a long silence— "Several hours. " And the 
design of it does not appear to have been to obtain a qual- 
ification for himself to speak — but to famish the people 
from wcrds. So novel a procedure, and in an age of su» 
perstition, when they sometimes thought he was an angel 
or spirit; (Jour. Part 1. p, 110) when it wa.s supposed, 
that the house was shaken when he prayed; (Jour. Part 1. 
p. 49) or preached, and some even hastened out of the 
church for fear it would fall upon their heads; (ib. 154) 
when on certain occasions, "the people flew like chaff 
before him into their houses,"- (ib. 153)— was calculated to 
work up expectation to the highest point— especially 
vfhen the old Priest, was comparing this waiting on G. F» 
to the waiting of the people on Christ for him to speak. 

The result of this meeting, in which G. F. vras silent 
several hours, while the people v/ere ever and anon speak- 
ing, and having their expectations worked up,— was, that 
nearly the whole company became converts to him. 

As early as the year 1653, G= F. says, "Nov/ Friends be- 
ing grown very numerous in the northern parts of the na- 
tion," &c. 

There was no system of Church Government, for many 
years after the formation of the Society. — The present 
form, or rather the ground work of it, was not settled till 



XII INTKODUCTION. 

the year 1678, when a Yearly Meeting of representatives, 
(which had heen held once before), was established in 
London. This was then, the Superior Meeting of the 
whole Society. 

Since that time, a gradual change has taken place in 
the Genera.! Constitution, and in the rules of Discipline. 

Before the establishment cf the Y. M. of Representa- 
tives in London, there w^as a Yearly Meeting of Ministers 
held there, which exercised a general care over the whole 
Society. Thus the governing power was first vested in 
the ministers. And the judgment delivered by this body, 
w^as considered binding on the members, as being directed 
by the Spirit. 

But this principle wus by no means settled. For a 
large number of the first converts to Quakerism, carried 
out the doctrine of immediate guidance of the Spirit, to 
a decided objection to Church Governm.ent. The per- 
sonal authority of George Fox, no doubt, governed the 
Societ}' in its infancy, a>nd exerted acontrcling influence 
as long as he lived. But he soon found the necessity of 
uniting the influence of others w^ith himself. The first 
arrangements for this purpose, did not appear entirely to 
reach the object. And something more systematical was 
(?oon called for. When this was attem-pted, it produced 
R strong excitement. Many regai^ded it as a departure 
from the original principleg of the Society: and it cannot 
be denied that th?=re was much plausibility in the objec- 
tion. It.certainly was a very important change in the 
■Constitution of the Society, after it had existed about 20 
years, and through the period of its most rapid growth, 
and most severe sufferings. But George Fox, Robert 
Barclay, William Penn, George Whitehead, and other 
persons of distinction, no doubt saw, that without the 
adoption of some system^ such a state of anarchy and con- 
jfusion \vould be produced, as totally to destroy the new 
Society. 



r?s^TRODUCTION. XIII 

' Whether the Ubcrty which had been enjoyed by the 
early Friends, before the adoption of Disciphne, led to 
the formation of a representative form of government or 
not, I do. not pretend to determine: but this was the form 
which prevailed. 

The whole Society vras divided into certain districts, 
and subdivisions. The smallest formed meetings for wor- 
ship, comnionly called Particular Meetings. These, be- 
sides meeting for worship, convened once a month to trans- 
act minor matter's of business, or to digest those that were 
more important, in order to send them up to the Superior 
Meetings. Ilcnce they are called, as respects their busi- 
ness character, Preparative Meetings.. 

Several of these Preparative Meetings, when small, 
constitute a Monthly Meeting, which, as its name imports, 
meets monthly. The powers of the Monthly Meeting 
are Judiciary, They attend to the common concerns of 
the Society — set parties at liberty to marry— grant certifi- 
cates of removal- — receive converts 'into membership — 
treat with offenders and disovv-n them — set ministers at 
liberty to tra,vel as ministers, -(within certain limits), &c. 
&c. and receive from the Preparative Meetings, the 
accounts which the Overseers make out, of the state of the 
respective meetings — given in answer to certain Queries. 

Several Monthly Meetings, except in cities, or where 
those meetings are large, constitute a Quarterly Meeting, 
held once in three months. These receive the Answers 
to the Queries from the Monthly Meetings — assist the 
Monthly Meetings when thought necessary, and try Ap- 
peals from them. 

The Yearly Meeting embraces the whole Society within 
certain limits. This Body possesses both Legislative and 
Judiciary powers. It adopts all rules of Discipline, pos- 
sesses a supervisory control over the Quarterly and other 
Meetings, and tries Appeals, which are brought up from 
the judgment of the Monthly and Quarterly Meetings. 



5.IV INTRODUCTION. 

The Monthly Meeting is the only body that can Disown 
a memb.er. When the party disowned is dissatisfied, he 
can appeal to the Quarterly and from that to the Yearly 
Meeting. 

Representatives are appointed by the Monthly to the 
Quarterly, and by the Quarterly to the Yearly Meeting. 
These Representatives may be regarded as constituting the 
Meeting. But in practice, all members not under dealing, 
are allowed to attend and take part in the transaction of 
business* 

No officer presides in those meetingSj except the Clerk, 
who records the conclusions arrived at by the meeting. 
And all those meetings when convened for the transac- 
tion of business, have a meeting for worship, in the fir§t 
place, which begins with silence. 

When proceeding to Business, the men and v/omen 
separate, and transact their business apart. 

For the prompt attention to important business, affect- 
ing the Society at large, or the interests of the Yearly 
Meeting, there is a body called the Meeting for Suffer^ 
ings. It is composed of 26 members appointed by the 
Yearly Meeting, and four' by each Quarterly Meeting; 
making in all (in Ohio Yearly Meeting) forty-six. 

All acknowledged ministersi have a right to attend — 
but other members have not. 

They meet twice in the year, once at the time of the 
Yearly Meeting, and once at the time of the Quarterly 
Meeting at Mountpleasant in the 2nd month. But they 
have the power of calling a meeting on any emergen- 
cy, when four members concur in considering it neces- 
saiy. 

To this meeting is given the inspection of writings, 
relating to the doctrines of the Society. This rule of 
Discipline, however, has been frequently disregarded in 
latter times, by all the parties by which the Society has 



INTRODUCTION. XV 

been marked, as, the Hicksites, the Orthodox, the Con- 
servatives, and the Evangelical Friends. 

The Meeting for Sufferings is considered as the repre- 
seniative of the Yearly Meeting during its recess. But 
it has no power to adopt rules of Discipline or articles 
of Faith, or to try appeals, or to treat with offenders, 
touching their rights of membership. 

From the infancy of the Society, the Ministers have 
held meetings apart from the ordinary members, hence 
they have frequently been called select meetings. In 
1727 the order of Elders was instituted. These are in- 
tended to be experienced persons, but not ministers, and 
they are associated with the ministers in their select capa^ 
city, and are designed to have a carc over them. 

Females, equally with the men, fill the stations of Min- 
isters and Elders. - 

In Government there is no specific rule, as to office or 
sex: but it results in practice, as individuals happen to 
acquire influence. 

All persons have a right to speak in meetings for wor- 
ship, either in preaching or prayer, unless their communi- 
cations be disapproved by the Elders. 

After a person has spoken frequently as a preacher, if 
his or her communications are approved by the meeting 
of ministers and elders, that body lays the case before the 
monthly meeting, by which the minister is recognized as 
such. But they pass no examination on doctrines or other 
qualifications for the office. 

Ministers have no special charge of any meeting or 
congregation; and there is, as respects the office, no 
grades of ministry. 

There is no provision for the support of ministers, 
except they be poor, and then their outfit and trjiveiling 
expenses, when they travel, are paid by the meeting that 
sets them at liberty to travel. Their common wants are 
generally supplied by private acts of benevolence. 



XVI liNTilODirCTlON. 

Those who have property, pursue the common avoca- 
tions of Hfc, Uke other people. 

The Ministry of the Friends, has much of an itinerant 
character. But the Society takes no carethat its meet- 
ings' should be supplied with ministers. And where min- 
isters reside, they neither are charged with the christian 
instruction of the members, nor are they at liberty to ap- 
point a meeting, without the concurrence of the monthly 
meeting, or the elders. 

If they wish to travel as ministers, a certificate of the 
monthly meeting must be obtained, stating the extent of 
the proposed visit, and expressing the concurrence of the 
meeting. 

If the visit is to extend within the limits of another 
Yearly Meeting, the concurrence of the Quarterly Meet- 
ing is required. • 

A visit beyond the seas, or a general visit to the society 
on this continent, requires a certificate from the Yearly 
Meeting of Ministers and Elders. 

The Ministers and Elders of each- Monthly Meeting, 
meet once in three months,, in a select capacity, to attend 
to the affairs of this part of the Society. This is called 
a Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Eiders. These 
meetings, within each Quarterly Meeting, form a Quar- 
terly Meeting of Ministers and Elders. And these again 
uniting, constitute a Yearly Meeting of Ministers and 
Elders. These meetings respectively are composed of 
both sexes, wdiich do not transact business separately, as 
the meetings for the general administration of Discipline 
do. 

The children of members, are members in full connec- 
tion. It is made the duty of parents to bring up their 
childreli in a manner conformable to the views of the 
Society. But there is no officer charged with the reli- 
gious instruction of the members. 

Once in three months the Overseers make out in wri- 



INTRODUCTION. XVII 

ting, Answers to certain Queries, relating to the observ- 
ance of moral duties, and the peculiar views of the Soci- 
ety. These Answers are laid before the Preparative 
Meeting, and by that sent to the Monthly Meeting, and 
thence to the Quarterly Meeting — And once a year the 
Quarters send up the embodied answers from the Monthly 
Meetings to the Yearly Meeting. These answers are in- 
tended to represent the state of the Society. A similar 
course is taken by the Meetings of Ministers and Elders. 

There is, from the sameness of the subjects inquired 
after, much sameness in the Answers. And from habit, 
or some other cause, these Answers do not generally vary 
with the varying state of the Society. But the Queries 
and xlnswers bringing m.any subjects into view, afford op- 
portunities for those who know the actual state of things, 
to give suitable admonition and advice in those meetings 
which take notice of what is called "The State of Soci- 
ety." But the cases of individual delinquents are not 
noticed in the "Answers,-' or in any proceedings growing 
out of the Answers. 

When a member violates the rules of Discipline, it is 
the business of the Overseers to visit the offender and 
endeavour by private labour to reclaim him. If this 
prove ineffectual, the Overseers report the case to the 
Preparative Meeting, which sends a written statement of 
the charges, to the Monthly Meeting. 

The Monthly Meeting is to appoint a Committee to 
visit the delinquent, and endeavour to convince him of 
his error. If he inclines to make "satisfaction," he pre- 
pares an "acknowledgment" — that is, a paper confessing 
his offence, condemning his conduct, requesting the meet- 
ing to pass it over, and promising to do better in future. 
These are the general outlines of an Acknowledgment, 
but in practice there is great variety of forms. This is 
to be shown to the committee, a.nd if approved by them_, 

when the minute relating to the case is read, the com- 

C 



XVIII INTRODUCTION. 

mittee report the result of their labours, and the culprit 
walks into the meeting, lajs his paper on the table, and 
sits down till the clerk reads it. After a pause, he retires, 
and the meeting is expected to "settle down" to feel after 
the suitability of the "offering." If it should be satisfac- 
tory, a minute to that efT^ct is made, a.nd a friend or two 
IS deputed to inform the person "under dealing;" and so 
the matter ends. 

But if the delinquent is not wrought upon by the com- 
mittee, they generally report — That they have had an 
opportunity with the individual, but did not find him in a 
disposition to condemn his deviation — or something to 
this effect. The meeting then proceeds to decide whe- 
ther he shall be "testified against:" which is never de- 
termined by votes, except that when contrary sentiments 
are expressed, the clerk determines what is the sense of 
the meeting, having respect both to the numbers and to 
the persons who have spoken on the opposite sides. 

When it is determined to "issue a testimony" against 
a person under dealing, or in other words to "disown" or 
excommunicate him, a minute is made of the conclusion, 
and a committee appointed to prepare the docum^ent for 
that purpose, giving him information of the judgment of 
the meeting in his case. 

This "Testimony," as it is called, is to embrace the 
charges on which he is to be excluded from the Society. 
The document thus prepared is to be presented to the 
meeting, and if approved, signed by the clerk. Another 
committee is then appointed to give the disowned person 
a copy of it, with information of his right of Appeal. 

If he incline to avail himself of this privilege he gives 
notice of his intention to the Monthly Meeting, which en- 
ters it on its minutes, and appoints a committee to attend 
the Quarterly Meeting, to answer the objections of the 
Appellant. 

The Quarterly Meeting on receiving the Report of the 



INTRODUCTION. XIX 

Monthly Meeting, calls in the Appellant, inquires if he 
wishes to prosecute his appeal— and then appoints a com- 
mittee to examine the case — on which committee no mem- 
ber of the Monthly Meeting from which the case was 
brought up, is to be appointed. And the Appellant is un- 
derstood to have the right of objecting to any person, nam- 
ed on that committee, who, he may think, would not do 
him justice. 

The committee of the Quarterly Meeting, after hearing 
the objections of the Appellant, and the explanations of 
the committee from the Monthly Meeting^ make up their 
judgment in the case, v/hich is presented to the Quarlerly 
Meeting. 

If the disowned person is still dissatisfied, he may, in 
like manner, appeal to the Yearly Meeting. 

The Overseers are persons of both sexes« appointed by 
the Monthly Meetings, to have the care of each Meeting 
and the members within their limits. It is the duty of the 
Overseers to treat with olfenders privately, and when 
their labours are unavailing to report the case in writing 
to the Preparative Meeting, which is to ^forward it to the 
Monthly Meeting. 

Ministers may be taken under "dealings" in the Meet- 
ings of Ministers and Elders, for causes not actionable un» 
der the common rules of Discipline. Thus for example, 
if a minister is thought "to have lost his service," that is, 
if his ministry is not acceptable to the other ministers and 
elders, or the influential part of them, he may be taken 
"under dealing." And if the Preparative Meeting of 
Ministers and Eiders concur in the judgment, it is to be 
carried to the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers and Elders. 
If the same sentiment prevail there, the case is returned 
to the Preparative Meeting of Ministers and Elders, which 
is to report the case to the Monthly Meeting. But what- 
ever may be the judgment of the Monthly Meeting in the 
case, the Minister so reported is not to attend any meet 



INTRODTJCTION. 



ings of Minislers and Elders, until he is recommended as 
ai; first. In oi;hcrs words, he is displaced from the Station 
of a Minister, bj the sole action of the Ministers and 
Elders, and it may be without even a charge of immoral 
conduct, or unsound doctrine, or breach of disipline in any 
respect. 

This poorer must be seen to be liable to great abuseSe— 
If personal influence can be acquired, which is no very 
difficult matter, personal dislike or unsoundness of prin- 
ciple in ruUng members, may be brought to bear upon a 
Minister, to his official degradation, however .sound he 
may be in his ministry, however fair in his moral charac- 
ter — however lively in his piety. And when he is dis- 
placed from the ministry, should he speak as a Minister, 
which is the common privilege of all, he is liable to be 
diso-'.vned. 

The Disipline giving this almost unbounded pov/er, to 
the sehct body, as ta the degradation of a Minister, re- 
quires that the Eiders should treat with himinpriDoie-then 
bring his case before the Preparative Meeting of Minis- 
ters and Elders- — then the Quarterly Meeting of the same 
class. These steps of dealing in his case, are all the safe- 
guards which he has for his jdearest rights, involving his 
most sacred duties. 

The foregoing sketch of the organization of the Society 
and of its rules of Disipline, is necessary for an understand- 
ing of the transactions noticed in the following work. 

The work is submitted to the impartial judgment of an 
enlightened community. 

Mountpleasantj 7tk mo,, 1837. 



EXAMINATION, <fec. 



CHAPTER I. 

In the Pamphlets which I have recent! j published, and 
in the last ten numbers of the 5th vol. of the Repository, I 
have shown what were the leading points of Doctrines, 
embraced in the Ilicksite controversy. I have shown also, 
both in these and in the former part of the Repository, 
that I supposed the Early Friends to mean what they 
said, in their soundest declarations^ of the Inspiration and 
divine authority of the lAolj Scriptures, and of the doc- 
trines contained in them. 

I freely confess, that my strong prepossessions in favour 
ofour "forefathers," induced me to make too large an al- 
lowance for their indiscretions: and to grant too wide a 
range for arguments and forms of expression which are 
to be found in their writings. Still the rallying point 
with me, as to those writings was, a solemn declaration 
made by Robert Barcla}-, in his Apology, which, in sub- 
stance was. That they never refused^ and never should^ to 
bring all their doctrines and practices to the Scriptures to be 
tried by them^ as the Judge and Tcst^ fi^^^y admitting that 
whatever 7vas not according to their iestimony., should therefore 
be rejected as false. 

This completely places all the doctrines and practices of 
the Society, on the ground of a Scriptural examination at 
all limes. And not only so, but gives a pledge, that every 
innovation of simple Scripture doctrine, should be re- 
jected as false* If this declaration had been made with 
sincerity by the writer, (which I am not about to call in 
question,) and held in good faith* by his successors, it 
would have warranted not only a selection of the soundest 
things that were written by Early Friends, as exhibiting 
Quakerism; but it would have sanctioned to the full ex- 



22 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 

tent, the principle of Reformation, It would not only 
have allowed us to take the hest^ and only the best parts of 
their writings, but have subjected even these, to the most 
rigid scrutiny, and correction by Scripture. 

it will require but little argument, with unbiased minds, 
to show that this is abiolutely right. To hold any opin- 
ions or doctrines of men, as not subject to correction by the 
Scriptures, is plainly and palpably to set such doctrines or 
opinions above the Scriptures, however this result may be 
denied. To refue to allow the examination^ is to carry 
the assumption, in favour of the authority of such opinions, 
in opposition to the Scriptures, still higher. 

If I had not supposed that the declaration of Robert 
Barclay, was to be considered a,s identical with Quaker- 
ism, I never should have been found among its advocates. 
But I did suppose it was. to be held in good faith; and on 
this ground, I selected the soundest parts of the writings of 
early Friends, without feeling myself bound by such pas- 
sages of an opposite character, as were quoted by others 
in support of the doctrines of Elias Hicks. I did indeed 
indulge the hope that the writers did not mean what they 
said, or seemed to say in the passages selected by the 
friends of E. 11. But the declaration of R. B. and others 
of a similar character, passed over this question, to more 
certain and substantial grounds. They refered all ques- 
tions of Faith and Practice — not to themselves for deci- 
sion, but to the Scriptures. 

In refering to the views of the Early Quakers, we made 
one class of quotations, the Hicksites made another. The 
doctrines thus presented were irreconcilcable to each 
other, and the Society was rent asunder, with violence. 

In close connection with the Separation, we made ^ 
strong effort to introduce among our members, a more in- 
timate acquaintance with the H0I3- Scriptures. Inquiries 
were instituted, under the derection of the Yearly Meet- 
ing, how far the members were furnished with the Bible^ 



THE SOCIETY. OF FSIENDS* 23 

and whether thej were in the daily practice of reading it, 
in families collected — or willing to adopted that regula- 
tion. Many families were found not furnished. In one 
Quartelj Meeting in Indiana, upward? of Eighty Families 
were found in this situation; and the Reports of the Bihle 
Association of Friends of America show a surprising de- 
ficency in various parts of the Society. In the visits which 
were ma,de by committees to the families of Ohio Yearly 
Meeting, a very large proportion w^ere found not in the 
daily practice of reading the Scriptures collectively — and 
some were not willing to adopt it, for fear of formality. 

This collective reading was strongly -recommended, in 
connection with opportunities for other devotional exer- 
cises; and, for a time, much interest was excited in this 
attempt to introduce the reading of the Bible, and the 
daily exercise of devotion in families collected. But that 
interest evidently subsided, while a zeal for the waitings 
of early Friends, and the maintenance of what was grave- 
ly called "Old fashioned Quakerism" increased. At one 
time, a number of associations were formed, under the 
character of Scripture Schools, being designed to promote 
the mutual study of the Scriptures. But they excited 
much alarm, and many prominent members exerted their 
influence so effectually, that in this section of the Society, 
and in many other places, they are entirely put down. 

In the discharge of my duty as a Minister of the Gos- 
pel, I continued, (after the Separation from the followers 
of E. H.) to preach the same great doctrines, which I had 
maintained in that controversy ; and to carry them out, 
in their praxtical application. It is well known, thai 
E. H. and others held, that Christ w^as an inward principle^ 
and identical with the Holy Spirit — and this was describ- 
ed as a universal inward light, that the body and blood of 
Christ, were but terms, designating this Inward Light, 
and therefore were to be found in the heart. It was a 
counterpart of the same theory, to deny "the outward per- 



24 PROCEBDIiNGS AND PltlNCIPLES OF 

son that suftered" — the man "that walked about the 
streerts of Jerusalem" to be the Christy or that the hlood 
shed upon the cross, was the blood bj which we are 
cleansed from sin. Justification was made to rest upon 
works, through the operation of the Spirit, "Internal 
Light," or inward blood of Christ, which was explained 
as the "Life." The doctrine ofa future state was brought 
into notice but not very extensively discussed; as the 
Character of Christ, his blood, and the nature of his death 
at Jerusalem, obtained the largest share of attention. 
E. H. however, very much discarded the idea of Heaven 
as aplace — and re'garded it merely as a state — considered 
the final Judgment to be in this life — and the end of the 
world, to be the end of each one's life. And he very 
much' let down the authority of the Holy Scriptures. 

I held the conclusive authority of the Bible, and in con- 
formity with it, I maintained that Jesus of Nazareth, was 
the Christ, the son of God — that to him give all the 
Prophets witness, that through his Name whosoever be- 
lieveth in him shall receive remission of sins: that in his 
death'' upon the cross at Jerusalem, and the actual shed- 
ding of his Blood, was offered that sacrifice for our sins, 
without which none could be saved, and which was repre- 
sented by the Atoning sacrifices which had been offered by 
the Fathers, and under the Law. This doctrine of Christ, 
of his death, and of the Shedding of his blood, when carried 
out, necessarily, led to that of Justification by Faith. We 
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son — Justified 
by his Blood — and thus made partakers of that redemption 
which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a 
propitiation through Faith in his blood. 

This naturally involves repentance toward God, and 
Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Here a change of 
heart is produced, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, for 
no man can repent of that which he once delighted in, with- 
out a change of the feelings and desires of the heart. 



Tils SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 25 

Repentance has a necessary connection with the doc- 
trine of accountabihty. "God commandeth all men every 
whereto repent, Z)ecaw5e.he hath a,ppointed a day in which 
he will Judge the Vr orld in righteousness, by that man 
whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance 
unto all men, in tlmt he hath raised him from the dead." 

This accountability involves the doctrine of the Resur- 
rection of the Dead, and of the Day of Judgmant. And 
all that we can fear, and all tha.t we can hope for, combine 
to admonish us to the discharge of the duty of prayer — and 
of walking by the Spirit — and of laying hold of that salva- 
tion which comes hy Jesus Christ, 

These doctrines, in connection with the others Vr^hich 
pertain to. the Gospel of Christ, I went on to preach, after 
the Separation. . But it was not long before I discovered 
indications of the disapprobation of certain prominent 
members of the Society. These indications appeared to 
be confined to a few, and were irregular as to duraiion. I 
still pressed on, in the discharge of my duty, as a Minister, 
and travelled in most parts of the Society on this continent. 

In 1832 1 obta,ined the usual credentials from the Month- 
ly and Quarterly Meetings of Short Creek, and the 
Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders of Ohio, to pay a 
religious visit to Friends and others, in some parts of 
Great Britain and Ireland. The following is a copy of the 
latter Document. 

"To Friends in Great Britain and Ireland, — Our beloved 
Friend Eiisha Bates, in a feeling manner, spread before 
this meeting a prospect which has, for a number of years, 
impressed his mind, to pay a visit in Gospel love, to Friends 
and others, in some parts of Great Britain and Ireland; 
and that he apprehended the time had come for disclosing 
the concern to his friends. He produced a certificate of 
the unity of Short Creek Monthly Meeting, endorsed by 
the Quarterly Meeting of Short Creek. 

The subject thus opened, engaged our weighty con- 

i) 



26 PROCEEDINGS AND FRINCirLES Of 

sideration ; and with feelings of near sympathy with this 
our dear and much devoted friend, and full unity with him 
in the important engagement, we have believed it right to 
set him at liberty to pursue the prospect, as best wisdom 
may direct; certifying that his conduct and conversation 
are exemplary: in his ministry he is sound in doctrine j 
and careful to wait for divine ability. 

We commend him to the care of the. Shepherd of Israel, 
disiringlhat through an humble dependence upon Him,: 
and the unfoldings of his counsel, he may not only ex- 
perience support and preservation through every Baptism 
and conflict, but that he may be enabled to perform the 
service required of him, to the comfort and edification of 
the Churches where his lot may be cast, and to the peace 
of his own mind. 

Signed by the direction of Ohio Yearly. Meeting of Min- 
isters and Elders, held at Mountpleasant, by adjournments 
on the 1st, 5th and 7th of the 9th month, 1837. 

• BENJAMIN W. LADD Clerk:' 

Immediately after the Yearly Meeting, I obtained a 
certificate from the Monthly Meeting of Short Creek to 
attend the Yearly Meeting of Indiana. It was shortly 
after this visit, that a sudden and violent excitement was 
produced throughout the Yearly Meeting of Ohio— and 
spread to other places, in consequence of my preaching 
the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, and the 
Day of Judgment, in Scripture language, I saw more and 
more of the necessity to state doctrines in Scripture language. 
And this produced a difficulty on the part of the dissa- 
tisfied — in making objections to my doctrines. For as I 
carefully kept to Scripture language in setting forth the 
doctrines — these could not be called in question, without 
coming directly into collision with the Scriptures. But 
the excitement was not the. less violent on. this accounts 
Nor were the efforts to destroy my religious reputation, 
the less, active and persevering, because they could not 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 27 

saccessfuilj make war on the Scriptures with which I. was 
fortified. Private defamation and detraction, both by 
word and writing, were resorted to, in order to produce an 
effect, where it was impossible for me to counteract it. 

It was during this excitement that I wrote the Address 
to the members of Ohio and Indiana Yearly Meetings, 
and presented it, for approval, to the Meeting for Suffer- 
ings, specially convened for that purpose. By the Dis- 
cipline, the ministers have the right to attend the settings 
of the Meeting for Sufferings, And those members of 
the meeting who, according to the provisions of the Dis- 
cipline, took upon them the calhng of a special meeting, 
to examine the Address, determined to invite the minis- 
ters, both men and women, within the Yearly Meeting, 
which was accordingly done. 

I have stated in the Refutation, that I had read the 
Essay of the Address to a company of Friends, previous 
to the call of this meeting—that the character of it was 
well known— that Benjamin W. Ladd, who was one of 
that company, requested a friend to use her influence to 
induce me to take out the passages of Scripture in the 
Address, relating to the Resurrection, and insert, instead 
of them, quotations from the vfritings of Early Friends. 
I stated also that the Address was decidedly, (I might have 
said, violently)^ opposed in the meeting, by sundry promi- 
nent and influential members—- such as William Flanner, 
William Wood, Jacob Ong, Jacob Branson, Benjamin 
Hoyle, &C.—- that B. W. Ladd proposed the appointment 
of a committee, to see if such a modification of the Ad- 
dress could not be made, as would relieve my mind, and 
satisfy the objecting Friends — that he was put on that 
committee, and with two others of it, Jesse Kenworthy 
and Jordan Harrison, called on me the same evening.— 
After much discourse on the subject, in which he insisted 
that the end of the world, was the end of each man's life, 
he made the proposition, which no doubt he had in his 



28 PROCEEDINGS AND rillNCIPLES OF 

mind in proposing the appointment of the committee to 
modify the Address, viz. to take out the passages of Scrip- 
ture and supply their places with quotations from the 
writings of Friends. This, in mere condescension, I agreed 
to do, but on reflection I declined it, and withdrevr the 
Addregs. 

In withdrawing the Address, 1 said tiiat it contained 
my sentiments on the subjects of the Resurrection and 
final Judgment, and entreated those who had most severe- 
ly reflected on me, on account of those doctrines, to show 
the grounds of their objections. This they steadily de- 
clined to do; and thus the meeting closed. 

But though these minis';ers and elders, entirely declined 
to enter into discussion with me on the doctrines in ques- 
tion, they did not decline to calum.niate me behind my 
back; but made it their business to impngn the doctrines 
I held, when 1 was not present to defend myself. 

The spring of 1833 was now advancing, and the time 
appeared every day, more and more pressingly to demand 
that I should prosecute my visit on the other side of the 
Atlantic. In the mean time, the state of the Society, and 
the treatment I had received from those I had regarded 
as my friends, so operated upon my mind, as to destroy 
my health, and a severe attack of illness ensued. The 
appearance of hostility gradually subsided: and while I 
was confined with this illness, W. Planner called to see 
me, in an apparently friendly disposition, and encouraged 
me .to look towards the prosecution of m.y transatlantic 
visit, as soon as I could prepare for it. He never had 
had one wordi oi conversation with me, on the doctrines to 
which he had shown so much aversion; nor did he enter 
at all. on the subject now. Others treated me with appa- 
rent friendship, and no one made objection to my going, 
I left home the -26th of the 6th month 1833. About a 
week before, my certificate had been rp-signrd in the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. - 29 

montlilj meeting, and liberij was granted mc, to ha,ve 
two meetings in Mountpiea,sa,iit. 

I went directly to Baltimore to attend the General 
Committee ; appointed by the several Yea,rly Meetings, 
except Philadelphia, ^vhich wa,s very decidedly opposed 
to the measure. 

I was then on my way to embark for a foreign land, 
with all the credentials that the order of the Society de- 
manded. And the separation from my American fi'iends 
was very sensibly felt. During the session of the Gene- 
ral Committee,- a meeting for business occurred in Balti- 
more. I am not certain whether it was a Monthly or 
Preparative Meeting. Wishing a parting opportunity 
with my friends, I requested it — but it was opposed by 
one of the most prominent members, on the ground, as he 
said, that I had not a certificate addressed to them; and 
they did not therefore know- me officially as a minister- 
though all of them knew me as a minister — and as a 
delegate to the General Committee from Ohia Year- 
ly Meeting, and as liberated to visit Great Britain and 
Ireland as a minister of the gospel. The objection, how- 
ever, was overruled, and the opportunity was granted me. 

I mention this fact, to show the manner in which a 
wide-spread dissatisfaction with me operated, while pro- 
fessed unity with me was maintained, and while I was 
liberated and encouraged to travel as a minister into fo- 
reign countries. 

Facts have abundantly proved, that those by whom this 
underworking was carried on, v, ere rather pleased than 
otherwise, with my absence from this country, that 
they might make their arrangements, and prepossess the 
minds of friends against me, while I was gone. The 
hope, too, might be entertained, tha.t the Conservatives in 
England, would find some hold to take on m.e, by which I 
might be led into difficulty there. But the Lord was on 



30 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

my side, and those who watched for my halting were disa.p- 
pointed. 

I have already given some sketches of sentiments, that I 
met with on that side of the Atlantic: and I refer to the 
recent numbers of the Repository, for information in 
regard to transactions in that country. The Letters also 
that I shall give in a subsequent part of this work, will fur- 
ther elucidate the subject. 

On my return home in the 11th month 1834, my health 
was such as to confine me to my room a considerable time. 
In the 2nd month 1835, 1 attended the Quarterly Meeting. 
It was in the Meeting of Ministers and Elders at that time, 
that I made some remarks, on the importance of soundness 
in the fundamental doctrines of religion, on the part of 
Ministers and Elders. I exhorted them to seek for the 
help of the IIol}^ Spirit in the exercise of their gifts, and 
expressed my full persuasion that if this were the case, a 
new spring of ministry would be opened among them. I 
gave it as my belief, that the ministry had not been tho- 
roughly purged by the late separation, but that the essen- 
tial doctrines of Hicksism were still in the Society. And 
by way of elucidation, I referred to the command which 
was given to Saul, utterly to destroy Ameleck. But he 
destroyed only that which was vile and refuse, and saved 
the best of the spoil, and spared Agag the King alive. And 
I expressed my strong apprehensions, that the Society had 
only thrown off the grosser matters which were found in 
it, while the very essence of the unsoundness was still re- 
tained. And I entreated my friends to take the subject 
deeply into consideration. 

At the close of this meeting, both Benjamin Hoylc, a 
minister, and B. W. Ladd, an elder, called upon me for 
explanations of this discourse. At the close of the latter 
interview, B. W. Eadd remarked, in substance, as follows: 
■'' Well, Elisha, if thee goes beyond oiir early Friends, thee 
will be a reformer, nndrarry offa party." On my answer- 



THE SOCIETY OF FRlE3iDS^ 31 

Ing, that I intended to keep very close to the Scriptures, 
he replied, "No — the writings of our Early Friends are 
something that has risen up between us and the Scriptures, 
and we must not go beyond them." This was in the pre- 
sence of Dr. Parker and Benjamin Wright. The Doctor 
does not ?eem to remember this part of the interview^ 
though he does not deny that it took place. But B- 
Wright does remember the conversation just recited. 

In the 5th month I obtained a certificate to attend the 
Yearly Meeting on Rhode Island. And there I found a 
number of my former friends, quite changed in their feelings 
towards me — but some were not. In New York, I learned 
from an estimable minister who attended the Yearly Meet- 
ing in Philadelphia, that it was confidently stated there, at 
that time, that I would receive no certificate from the 
Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders, to be held in' 
London the last of the 5th month — ^that is, more than a 
month after it was announced in Philadelphia. 

That a private decision should thus be made up hy indi- 
viduals, so long beforehand, for a body professing to act 
under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, is cer- 
tainly not to the credit of the parties concerned in such 
transactions. 

Agreeably to this previous conclusion, when the Meet- 
ing of Ministers and Elders convened in London, the 
attempt was made to decline giving me a certificate of sat- 
isfaction with my visit, as is usual in such cases. And so 
determined were the objectors, that they overruled the 
other part of the meeting, and it was concluded to give no 
certificate. 

But information of this decision got out, and the question 
Was asked in the- Yearly Meeting, whether such was the 
fact or not. The Yearly Meeting being the Superior 
Meeting, the call for information was imperative, and the 
state of the case was disclosed. The decision of the Min- 
isters and Elders was oveiTuled, and they were directed to 



32 TKOCi^EDINGS AND PRINCIPI.SS OP 

reconsider the subject. This was mortifying bejond mea- 
sure; but there was no' alternative ; and the subject was 
again taken up. Another violent effort was made to with- 
hold the certificate, but it failed, and the document wets 
prepared, recognizing my Gospel labours and certifying 
that they were acceptable to many. 

Previous to the passing of this paper, every objection 
that could be thought of was advanced, investigated, and 
removed. 

It is a fact, however, that the certificate, as to we, is 
full — the abatement falls on those to whom my gospel labours 
were not acceptable. 

These facts exhibit a tissue of disgraceful intrigue and 
management, that never could exist in a sound state of 
Society. The private making up of decisions beforehand, 
-for an important meeting, professing immediate divine 
guidance, must be regarded as placing the claims of such 
meetings in a very unfavorable point of view. It turns 
out, also, that those w^ho earnestly endeavoured to carry 
out this previously-formed judgment, were ministers of 
the very first standing in the Conservative party. Among 
these, according to Thomas Evans's letter, was William 
Allen, the clerk of the meeting. George and Ann Jones, 
Sarah Grubb and Elizabeth Robson, were also among 
the number. But this was not all. The anticipated de- 
cision was sent over to America, long before the meeting 
that was to form it under divine guidance was held — and 
was actually used in this country, more than a month be- 
forehand, to have an unfavourable effect upon my religious 
character. And after all, it was set aside by the highest 
meeting in the Society. And the Ministers and Elders 
themselves, finally issued a- document, jdirectly contrary 
to their conclusion, but a few days before. 

On my way home from New England, I stopped a few 
days in Philadelphia. But I did not see Thomas Evans, 
he having gone to the sea side, on a summer excursion. I 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 33 

meiidon this, because it is. one of the features of his letter. 
The approaching storm-was now gathering around me. 
I think the summer and autumn of 1835 was, as relates to 
the Society, the most painful period of mj life. I saw 
that the friends could not bear sound doctrine: and the 
grief arising from this painful conviction, impressed upon 
me by observations, through the whole length of the So- 
ciety, from London to' Indiana — the long and sore perse- 
cution I had received from my former friends, bore with 
such weight upon me, that I could most literally say with 
the Apostle, I was pressed above measure, so that I des- 
paired even of life. It did indeed seem, at times, that 
my constitution, shattered as it was, must sink under tlie 
burdens which I had to bear. 

Thomas Evans's Letter to me, under date of 7th month 
25th, (see Appendix), shows that the dissatisfaction with 
me was for doctrines — new views^ as he is plea,sed to call 
them. But he is careful not to specify what they were. 
It shows also, an extensive correspondence and under- 
standing among the Conservatives, in my case. It dis- 
closes the fact, that no reformation or correction, in the 
views of early Friends, would be allowed; and that my 
disownm.ent was determined on, without an entire sub- 
mission on my part. 

That a fev/ individuals, such as Ann Jones, Thomas 
Evans, and B. W. Ladd, should exercise such despotic 
powers in the Society, at this day, as to proscribe whoev- 
er they please — and tha.t, too, for holding the simple and 
plain doctrines of the New Test"ament, is certainly aston- 
ishing. 

In the mean time the manuscript Letter, (reviewed in 
the 25th and 26th numbers of the Repository), had been 
widely circulated in the western country. It was written 
by Thomas Evans of Philadelphia, to Benjamin W. Ladd 
of Smithfield, under date of 4th month 25th, 1835. 

The intention was to produce an excitement, by pri- 
E 



3^4 TRdCEEDINGS Ar<D PRINCIPLES OF 

Irate and underhand means, against certain individua]f% 
on account of the doctrines" which, they held. Of these 
individuals, Isaac Crewdson was one, and E. Bates wa3 
another* Of the offensive doctrines, that of the conclu- 
»ive authority of the Holy Scriptures, stood pt* omineni— 
and "the observance of the first day of the week as a 
moral obligation" was another. In tracing out that Let- 
ter, we find the doctrine of the Resurrection mentioned 
in an ambiguous way. Bilt from the close connection 
which has beeil maintained between the writer of that 
letter and those who violently opposed that doctrine— 
from the fact that it was written to one of those opposers 
of the doctrine, and by him put into circulation, for the 
promotion of his own views, all uncertainty as to the 
meaning of the passage is removed. He objects, m 
strong terms, to the idea that '^many of .the views of our 
worthy predescesscrs [are] unscriptural and unsound." 
By thisj he plainly declares hib iopiaion, that all the wri- 
tings of the Early Friends, are sound and scrlptaral. 

The doctrine held by those called Evangelical Friends, 
relating to Justification by Faith^ is mentioned with disap- 
J>robatiorii And he proceeds to say: "Accompanying the 
promulgation of these erroneous views I have mentioned, 
is an active promotion of what is styled family duty; 
readirig and expounding the Scriptures; praying vocally 
by heads of families with their assembled household ; and 
also what they style teaching the Gospel, which they say 
is a distinct thing from the ministry, and may properly be 
exercised by every concerned parent. Hence their per- 
formances have become yqyj common ; and in the families 
of some friends are accompanied with the vocal singing 
of hymns, or the repetition." 

From these facts, it is evident, that the holding of the 
conclusive authority of the Holy Scriptures — Justification 
by Faith, the Ressurrection of the dead, the practical 
duty of prayer, with other domestic devotions, and the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIEXDS, 35 

teaching of the Gospel by '^concerned parents," had all 
given offence, as "going from the original ground of our 
profession," and measures were taken to put them down. 

The pious christian of any other denomination, can 
scarcely read these developements of sentiment without 
astonishment, that now, in the 19th century, such a war* 
fare should have been commenced against Christianity, in 
Faith and Practice, and carried on to the disownment of 
individuals. 

It is important to take notice of this letter, as all the 
points of doctrine are- distinctly embraced in it^ which I 
have charged the Society for opposing. 

The whole letter is given in the Appendix, together 
with another letter from the same writer, addressed tof 

This iast-mentioned letter shows that doctrines was the- 
ground of dissatisfaction vdth me, both in England aad 
In Philadelphia* And by the allusion to the "new no- 
tions of Crewdson and his friends," we are warranted in 
concluding, that they are the same which were men- 
tioned in the Letter to Benjamin W. Ladd. In this let- 
ter I was given to understand, that an extensive inter- 
change of sentiment had taken place among the the Con- 
§erv^atives in England and America, in relation to me; 
that they were dissatisfied with those n^ix' doctrines, which 
were plainly the absolute authority of the Holy Scrip 
tures in matt-ers of Faith and Practice, Justification by 
Faith, the Resurrection" of the dead — the practical duty 
cf Prayer, and the obligation on heads of families to lead 
their families into devotional exercises, and to bring up 
their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
I was given to understand, also, that no reformation in 
the views of early Friends, would be tolerated, — was in' 
vited to leave the Society, and virtually informed, that if 
I did not, or settle down into quiet^ and an entire abandon:- 
ment o{ the new notions of Crewdson and his friends— 



Vyb PROCEEDI>'GS AND FllINCIPLES OF 

(iisowniiicnt would be the inevitable consequence. This, 
it should be remembered, was more tlian tiine months 
before the 23rd number of the Repository was writ- 
ten — thirteen months and a half .before I was bap- 
tized, and about fifteen months before the Appeal was 
published. Here my intended disownment was distinctly 
announced, long before one single thing m.entioned in the 
charges on which I have been disowned, had occurred. 

I do not intend to say that the Society would not have 
disowned me, for calling the paperis of George Fox in 
question, or for being Baptized, if the original causes of 
dissatisfaction had not previously existed. I believe they 
would. But the papers already referred to, and' those 
which I shall hereafter bring into notice, show beyond 
all contraxliction, that my disownmcnt was long intended 
and threatened, on. account of my holding and" preaching 
the great doctrines and duties of religion. 

The letters of Sarah Grubb, Ann Jones, and Thomas 
Evans, are expressed in terms that indicate an imperious 
>and overbearing temper. That such a teniper is permit- 
ted to rule in the Society, is one of its present calamities: 
and as is evident from the facts of the present case, is 
intimately connected with unsoundness in principle. 

The Document of the Meeting ibr SulTerings of Ohio, 
issued in the 9th month 1835, is a further evidence of the 
combination wlrlch had been formed, and of the doctrin- 
al character of the excitement which had run throughout 
the Society, from. London to Indiana. 

Isaac Crewdson had written an exposure of the doc- 
trines of Elias Hicks, which he called a Beacon to the 
Society of Friends. As a refutation of those doctrines, 
by which the Society had so deeply sulTered, and from 
which it was far from being clear, the Beacon is not infe- 
rior, to say the least of it, to any of the Philadelphia pub- 
lications, from the anonymous pamphlets, to the Declara 
tion of the Yearly Meeting. The Friends of that city,how- 



THE SOriETY OF FRIENDS. C. i 

cvei\ determined to put itdov/n, a,nd they made a formal 
parade against it, at the Yearly Meeting in the 4th month. 

An attempt was made in the meeting for Sufferings for 
New England in the 6th month/to issue a document 
against it. I v^as there, as were Thomas Kite of Philadel- 
phia, Joshua Lynch of Salem Q. M. Ohio, Rohert Comfort 
and Mead Atwater of N. Y. Yearly Meeting, &c. When 
the subject was introduced, I made some- objections to the 
coarse proposed, and tliere was good sense enough in the 
meeting, to decline to follow in the path which had been 
struck out in Philadelphirt. A feeling of indignation 
however was manifested against me, by some present, of 
which I had not met With many examples before. 

Joshua Lynch abruptly broke off his visit, in Nevv' Eng- 
land, immediately a,fl;er the Yearly Meeting, left his car- 
riage and horses, a.nd hastily returned home, by public 
conveyance. 

About a week before the Yearly Meeting here, he cam.e 
into the neighbourhood, to make some private visits, to 
promote certain objects he had in view: one of which vras, 
to prepare the minds of some of the members of the meet- 
ing for Sufferings, for the issuing of a document against 
the Beacon. • 

Thomas Evans also came to the Yearly Meeting, with 
a certificate, though not in the station either of a minister 
or felder. At the opening of the first sitting of the meet- 
ing for sufferings, a request was made for his admission, he 
being waiting in the yard. He was not a member of the 
meeting for Sufferings in Philadelphia — and by |the Dis- 
cipline was not elegible to attend. But contrary to the 
uniform practice of the Society, he was admitted. 

I mention this circumstance for tvro reasons, one, to 
show how little the order of the Society is regarded by 
the conservatives themselves — the other, to mark the con- 
nection of his visit with the issuing of the Document of 
the Meeting for Sufferings. 



38 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

Although I have reviewed this document in the 2Cth 
no. of the Repository, I shall insert it here with a few re- 
marks upon some of its prominent parts. 

"This meeting has heen brought under exercise and con- 
cern on account of the dissemination of sentirhents, cal- 
culated to weaken the faith of our members, in the funda- 
mental doctrines of the universality of Divine grace, and 
the influence of the Holy Spirifon the mind of man, as the 
primary rule of faith and practice; and to undervalue 
some of those Christian testimonies which, under its gui- 
dance, our worthy predecessors in the truth were led to 
promulgate to the world, and which are clearly set forth 
by our blessed Lord and his Apostles in the Holy Scrip- 
tures. 

"Among the means of spreading these unsound views'we 
may particularly notice a late v/ork entitled "A Beacon 
to the society of friends," containing sentiments repug- 
nant to the Christian principles which our religious society 
has always held and maintained, since it pleased the Lord 
first to gather us, as a distinct people. We feel an ear- 
nest and tender solicitude that all our dear friends may be 
preserved from being entangled in any views which would 
lead them lightly to csieem these precious doctrines and 
testimonies; that they may avoid all doubtful disputations 
and speculative opinions, which gender strife and conten- 
tion, and seek to know an establishment on the alone 
sure foundation, Christ Jesus the Rock of ages, abundant^ 
ly testified of in the Scriptures of truth, and inwardly re- 
vealed by the Holy Spirit to the humble believing soul. — 
As they come in living faith to him who died for our sins, 
that we might be justified through his blood, and yield 
themselves in reverent obedience to his spiritual govern- 
ment, they will experience a growth in grace and in that 
divine knowledge which accompanies salvation ; and thus 
be qualified to fill up their respective stations and duties 
in the world and in the Church, to their own peace and 
the edification of the bod v. 



THE SOCIETY OF FKIENDS. 39 

"Our religious society has always firmJy and sincerefy 
believed in that holy scripture doctrine that Hhe grace of 
God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men; 
teaching us, that denying ungodliness, and worldly lusts, 
we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this pre- 
sent world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious 
appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 
who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all 
iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zeal- 
ous of good works.' This grace ofGod we believe is 'the 
spirit of truth,' which our blessed Lord promised to send to 
guide his disciples into all truth, ^t is the true light which 
lighteth every man that cometh into the world;' and 'he 
that followeth him shall not walk in darkness, but shall 
have the light of life.' To ' this divine light, inwardly re- 
vealed, our w^orthy forefathers were engaged to call the at- 
tention of the different classes of professors in their day, 
as the foundation of all living experimental reHgion; that 
by obedience to its teachings they might be led from a 
dependence an a mere outside profession, how ever sound 
in its doctrines, to an inw^ard, practical acquainta,nce with 
the cleansing and sanctifying operations of the Holy 
Ghost, Nor was it by precept only that they enforced 
the great truths of the Christian religion, by submission 
to the dictates of this blessed spirit, they were enabled to 
shew forth its power and efficacy in holiness of life and 
circumspection of demeanor, bringing forth the fruits of 
meekness, long suffering, gentleness and purity, adorning 
the doctrine of God our Saviour in conduct a,nd conversa- 
tion. 

"They believed, as the society has done down to the 
pr esent day, that whatsoever Christ did in his outward 
manifestation, both living and dying, was of great benefit 
to the salvation of all that have believed, and now do, and 
that hereafter shall beheve in him,, unto justification and 
iicceptance with God. But the -^s^rf to came to that 



40 PltOCEEDINGS AND FKixN'CIPLES OV 

faith, is to receive and obey the manifestation of his divine 
light and grace in the conscience, which leads men to be- 
lieve and value and not to disown or undervalue Christ, 
as the common Sacrifice and Mediator. For we do affirm 
that to follow this holy light in the conscience, and to turn 
our minds and bring till our deeds and thoughts to it, is 
the readiest, nay, tlic only right way, to have true, living, 
and sanctifying faith in Christ, as he appeared in the flesh; 
and to discern the Lord's body, coming and suffering, 
aright ; and to receive any benefit by him, as our only 
Sacrifice and Media,tor; according to the beloved disci- 
ple's emphatical testimony, 'If we walk in the light, as he 
is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and 
the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all 
sin.' 

"May it then, dear friends be our individual concern to 
be established on this safe and sure foundation, being 
rooted and built up in Christ; that 'we may all come in 
the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of 
God, unto- a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
of the fullness ofChrist. That henceforth we be no more 
children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every 
wind of doctrine, by the slight of men and cunning craft- 
iness whereby they lie in wait to deceive, but speaking 
the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, 
which is the head even Christ.' 

"We feel an afFectionatc solicitude for our members of 
every class, but especially for the beloved youth, that they 
may seek after retirement and quietude of mind, and cul- 
tivate an acquaintance with their Lord and Saviour as he 
is pleased to reveal himself by his Spirit in their hearts. 
This state of silent introversion, and waiting on the Lord, 
will be a suitable qualification for the profitable perusal of 
the precious pages of Holy Scripture, a practice which we 
recommend to the daily observance of all; believing that 
they are 'profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 



THE SOCIETY OF FRLElsD^, 41 

tion, for instruction in righteousness/ and -able to. make 
vrise unto salvation^ through faith which is in Christ Je- 
sus.'" As we come to know and follow him in humility 
and holj fear, we shall be enabled to distinguish his voice 
from that of the stransrer, iio wever soecious the resem- 
blance, be preserved from every stratagem of tlie unweari- 
ed adversary and in the progress of our religious growth, 
be prepared under the fresh anointing from on high to la- 
bour availingly for the advancement- of the glorious cause 
of truth and righteousness in the earth." 

The* first thing I shall notice in this paper, is the pro- 
fession of concern, into which the meeting vras introduced 
— a thing however made up beforehand, as was well un- 
derstood by a number of the members of that- meeting. 

In the Review of this document, which I published in 
the Repository, I stated that I believed in the original 
draft, as it passed the meeting, the exhortation to the mem- 
bers of the Society that "all our depa* friends may avoid 
all doubtful disputations and specjiiative opinions, which 
gender strife and contention, and seek to know an estab- 
lishment on the alone sure foundation, Christ Jesus the 
Rock of ages, abundantly testified of in the Scriptures of 
truth, and inwardly revealed by the Holy Spirit' to the 
humble believing soul;", the clause relating to inward 
revelation, stood before that vv^hich relates to the testimo- 
ny of Scripture. I am able to say now, without the fear 
of contradiction, that such was the fad. The passage 
originally read as follows: "We feel an earnest and ten- 
der solicitude that all our dear friends may be preserved 
from being entangled in any views which v/ould lead 
them lightly to esteem these precious doctrines and testi- 
monies; that they may avoid all doubtful disputations and 
speculative opinions, which gender strife and contention, 
and seek to" know an establishment on the alone sure foun- 
dation, Christ Jesus the Kock of ages, inv/ardly revealed 
F 



42 PR0CEEBI2fGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

bj the Holy Spirit to the humble believing soul, and 
abundantly testified of in the Scriptures of truth," 

The question will very naturally occur, why was the 
ti-ansposition of the two latter clauses of this sentence, 
after it had deliberately passed the meeting, and with ob- 
jection made to it, and over-raled, thought to be a matter 
of so much importance, as to demand a call of the meet- 
ing, for the simple purpose of making the change? The 
reason was this, the passage as it stood, had alarm.ed some 
friends, as well it might, with the idea that it was direct 
Hicksite doctrine. And the transposition was made, to 
quiet that alarm— but without changing the doctrine in- 
tended to be conveyed by the Document, as it originally 
stood. That doctrine was, to maintain the views of earlj 
Friends, as arising from inward revelation to them, and 
not from the Scriptures, but merely corroborated by the 
Scriptures. 

The alteration nlay justly be charged with a lack of can^ 
dour; for the document, as it stood at first, evidently con- 
veyed the sentiments of its framers: and it contains the 
very same sentiments still — though arranged for the 
special purpose of not giving alarm. Let the reader recur 
to the very first sentence in the document, and there he 
will find the "exercise and concern" of the meeting to be, 
on account of the dissemination of sentiments, calculated 
to weaken the faith .of our members in the fundamental 
doctrines of the universality of Divine Grace, and the In« 
fluence of the Holy Spirit on the mind of man, as the pri- 
mary rule of faith and practice." I take this part of the 
sentence to avoid breaking the connection; and to make 
two passing observations as we go along: One is, that in- 
justice is done to Isaac Crcwdsori, in representing him as 
denying the universality of divine grace: the other is, 
that the whole weight of their "exercise and concern" fell 
upon the maintenance of the doctrine of the divine and 
conclusive authority of the Holy Scriptures, in matters of 



THE SOCIETY OF FHIENDS. 43 

Faith and Practice. But the part of the sentence which 
immediately follows the foregoing quotation, is that to 
which i wish to call particular attention, as containing 
the sentiment which the transposition was made, in some 
degree to conceal, — "and to undervalue some of those 
Christian testimonies wiiich, under its guidance, our wor- 
thy predecessors in the truth weie led to promulgate to 
the world, and which are clearly set forth by our blessed 
Lord and his Apostles in the Holy Scriptures." 

This agrees precisely with the passage which was trans- 
posed, and the transpcsition of which was thought of suf- 
ficient importevnce, to demand a special meeting of the 
meeting for Sufferings. It is a prominent object of the 
whole document, to incubate the idea, that the Earlj 
Friends derived their doctrines from inward revelation, 
and not from the Scriptures. And then, by a strange in- 
consistency^ to contend for the influence of the Holy 
"Spirit, as the Primary Rule of Faith and Practice, and 
make that Rule identical with the views of Early Friends. . 

To discredit the Scriptures, hj not allowing them to be 
the means^ of bringing us, in the first place, to a knowledge 
of the doctrines of Christianity, is plainly to" discredit the 
Record which God has given of i'lis Son» To claim for the 
views of the Early Friends this high character of revela- 
tion, is to set them above the Scriptures, in several re- 
spects. It places those friends not only upon apostolic 
ground, but as having peculiar claims on us, as "our worthy 
predecessors," ^^our dear forefathers," &c. It sets those 
writings above the Scriptures, or in other words, it not only 
places them beyond connection by the Scriptures, in ascrib- 
ing to them the character of a more recent revelation than 
the New Testament, but it claims a controul over the 
Scriptures, as containing the true doctrine of Scripture, 
given to Early Friends by revelation. And every effort is 
used, to fix this notion in the minds of the members of this 
Society — that they may avoid all investigation-r— keep c^ut. 



4 4 PROCEEm.NGS AXD FIIINCIFLKS OF 

of the way of ail arguments, conducted on purely Scrip- 
tural grounds — a,nd shut up all controversies, with the 
opinions of Early Friends— as these are to be given out, 
in the course of a few years, in the Friends' Library. 

But take the doctrine of the Influence of the Holy Spirit 
as ths Primary Rule as ostensibly stated in the Document, 
and it cannot be sustained. 

The Early Friends insisted that the Holy Spirit 
was the Primary Pvule. But if the declaJration of the 
meeting for Sufferings means neither more nor less 
than this, why should the sentence be incumbered with 
the additional terms. But every man acquainted with 
the meaning of words, must see at once, that the terms 
are not identical. Why then did the meeting enter upon 
this new version of the old doctrine of the Friends? Do 
they think it is proper for them to modify or change doc- 
trines, which they denominate Fundamsntal^ and that, not 
to render them conformable to the Scriptures, at the very 
moment v/hen they were passing censure upon a Friend 
in a Foreign country, (and over whom they had no juris- 
diction, whatever- — ) for bringing the Scriptures to bear 
upon the same point of doctrine? 

But take either the old or new version of the doctrine 
of the Prim.ary Rule, and it cannot bear the test of Holy 
Scripture. The question is not whether the dictation of 
the Holy Spirit is infallibly true or not: for no one in 
his sober senses will deny this. But whether, to us, who 
have the Scriptures, they are not of absolute and conclu- 
sive authority, in ail points of doctrine, whether of prin- 
ciples or practice? 

I think it necessary to narrow up the question, so as to 
include only those who have the Scriptures — because, by 
arguing from the condition of the Heathen, Friends have 
argued themselves upon Heathen ground. For taking 
the Light which men, in a state of nature have, (entirely 
independent of the Bible;) as the Primary Pvule, a^id every 



THE SOCfETV OF FRIENDS. 45 

one acauainted with this part of the human familv must 
kno^Y, that this Rule gives no knovvledge of those doc- 
trines of Christianity, which every true believer acknowl- 
edges to be of Fundamental importance. And if that 
Rule does not give, to those who have no other, the essen- 
tialdoctrmes of Christianity, then Christianity itself is not 
included in this Primary Rule: which would be to banish 
Christianity from the system of religion to be inculcated 
and maintained by it. 

To say that Christianity would be taught by this uni- 
versal Light which the Heathen possess, if they were 
obedient to its dictates, is assertion without proof. The 
doctrines committed to the Apostles, and the Scriptures 
of the Prophets, are, by the commandment of the erer- 
lasting God, to be ^'made know^n unto all nations for the 
obedience of Faith." The Scriptures show clearly that 
the doctrines of religion a,re to be communicated to man- 
kind through .ihem^ and all history establishes the fact, 
that where they have not been directly or indirectly 
known, the religion of Jesus Christ, which is the only 
true religion, has not been enjoyed. 

Leaving then thQ condition of the Heathen, to be dis- 
posed of by the Judge of all the earth, who will do right — 
and whose tender mercies are overeJl his works, we come 
to the question, immediately relating to ourselves — what 
is the Rule of Faith and Practice, by which we are to be 
governed? God has spoken by the Prophets, Apostles, 
and by his own dear Son. Shall we take his Word thiis 
given to us in the Scriptures-, as the. Rule,, or shall we con- 
sider the impressions on our ozvn minds as the Rule? I 
say the impressions on our own minds, because the divine 
origin of those impressions is not to be taken as a thing 
of course. We all know that whatever God may immedi- 
ately communicate to man will necessa,rily be true. But 
v/e have to prove that. the impression is such a com.munca- 
tionfrom him, before- the advantage of this conc-ession can 
be rii^htlv claimed. 



46 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 

Take for example, the impressions of Jacob Behmen, 
and of George Fox, that thej knew by revelation the na- 
ture and virtues of all things — and can any sober minded 
man beheve that they were not mistaken? Take George 
Fox's discernment of the witches by revelation, as men- 
tioned in the two first editions of his Journal, but excluded 
from those afterwards printed, and do we beheve that he 
really had such a revelation? Very few will answer in 
the affirmative. Take his letter to Oliver Cromwell, in 
which he calls himself "the Son of God," and says "my 
kingdom is not of this world;" and again and again he says 
he was moved of the Lord to write it-— but can we believe 
that he really was so moved th write— what was either 
gross ignorance or gross blasphemy ? I might multiply ex- 
amples, but these will suffice to show, what every man 
ought to admit, with all readiness^ that men are very apt to 
be mistaken in their own impressions. If the very Foun- 
der of the Society was so greatly mistaken in. what he took 
to be immediate revelations, how can the ordinary mem« 
bers of the Society, insist upon the impressions of their own 
minds, as the Primary Rule of Faith and Practice? Butit 
may be said, that we do not profess our impressions to be 
the Rule— but the Influence of the Holy Spirit, and this 
only. 

But there is an utter fallacy in this. For if we have im- 
pressions, on a matter in hand, the question, on this theory 
will immediaiteiy arise, is this impression from the Holy 
Spirit? Or is it tiie working of my own imagination ? And 
how, I ask is this polos; to be decided? If by the impres- 
sion itself, then the impression is taken, as divine, whether 
right or wrong, and then, after this, it is to be tried — -br/ 
itself. But the absurdity of this must be obvious. If on 
the other hand, the impression is to be tried by some Rule 
to which itmust be subjected, as of acknowledged divine 
authority — then that rule must be of higher authority than 
the impression. A nd it would be preposterous to suppose, 



THE SOCIETY OF FKIE^TDS. 47 

that the impression was first to be made subordinate to 
that acknowledged Rule, and then the Rule made subor- 
dinate to the impression. 

But if the Primary Rule is in every man, then every man 
must consult it for himself, and thus subordination in So- 
ciety would be at an end. And there is a manifest con= 
tradiction in insisting that the Primary Rule is in every 
man, to be known by every man, in himself and for him- 
self, and at the same time to hold over him, as of absolute 
authority, either the opinions of his predecessors or of his 
cotemporaries. And as an illustration of my meaning, 
take the ca,se of an individual, who sincerely believes that 
both the testimony of Scripture a.nd the direct witness of 
the Holy Spirit, clearly determine a point of Christian 
doctrine, if that decision is not according to the views of 
George Fox, or the opinions of the ruling Conservatives, as 
to what were the opinions of George Fox, all that such a 
man may say of the concurrent testimony of the word, and' 
©f the Spirit, will avail nothing. He must succumb, or be 
disowned. How rediculous then is the pretension to such 
a fundamental principle, as to what is the Primary Rule, 
when it resolves itself, not into the immediate teaching of 
the Spirit, as really recognized by the Society, but the 
opinions of George Fox and his cotemporaries, as handed 
out by present conservatives — w^ho serve them up at dis= 
eretion, ''with their intrinsic value enkanced,^^'^ 

But while the Society thus practically gives a contra- 
diction to its own Fundamental principles, in its dealing 
with its members — individuals in ihQirprivats musings, must 
necessarily have some Rule to which questions of doctrine 
are to be brought. And here a mistake may be of incal- 
culable mischief. If we claim to ourselves, revelations of 
doctrine, independent of the Scriptures, and make the 
Scriptures "Secondary, and Subordinate'' to their sup- 



*Se8 Prospectus for theFriende' Library, 



48 PiiacEEmNOs and riiiNCiPLEs or* 

posed revelations — if emljoldened by the ca-scs so solemnly 
brought forward by Robert Barclay, of persons v/ho could 
not read their own native language, who, when pressed 
with texts of Scripture, boldly declared that the text was 
certainly wrong and that the Spirit of God never said so: 
we undertake to adopt, reject, or construe the Serif lures to 
suit our own supposed revelations — what barriers can be 
set against the wildest imaginations? Of such mistakes 
the Society of Friends affords a variety of examples. — 
Those who went naked in the streets and other public 
places — ^^and those who approved such proceedings (and 
they were approved by George Fox, Samuel Fisher, &c. 
&c.) — the worship paid to James Naylor, and to George 
Fox — with many other things in early times, and the wild 
extravagances in New England about twenty years ago^ 
&c. may be pointed to as examples. 

But it is not in such flagrant cases alone, that we may 
see the mischief developed. Whenever the conclusive 
authority of the Holy Scriptures is made to yield to the 
impressions on the minds of individuals, either as to the 
doctrines to be believed, or 8.s to the practical obligation 
of those doctrines, there the pernicious influence of an 
erroneous principle may be discovered — though the mis- 
chief may be held in check by other causes. 

As already noticed, it is a fact, established by the exper- 
ience of all nations, and of the last 1800 years, that the 
doctrines of Christianity are not known in those portions 
of the globe, where the Scriptures have not directly or in- 
directly been communicated. This settles the question 
whether the doctrines of Christianity are communicated to 
mankind by the Scriptures — or by immediate revelation 
independent of the Scriptures. The proof is positive, as 
respects the Heathen part of the world. And the in- 
ference, is.not less strong as respects Christian countries. 
For in addition to the facts of the case, the reasoning is 
irresistable — that if God does not furnish, by immediate 



THE SOCIETY Or FRIENDS. 49 

revelation, aknowledge even of tlie fundamental doctrines 
of Christianitj where those doctrines have not been car- 
ried bj the Scriptures — we cannot suppose he would grant 
such an extraordinary mode of conveying that knowledge, 
where the Scriptures are possessed* The reason is ob- 
vious, "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear 
them. If they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, nei- 
ther would they be persuaded though one arose from the 
dead." This is the language of the Lord Jesus, in the 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus. V/hat shall we 
say now, where in addition to those records of the will of 
God, we have the Evangelists and Apostles? 

But we have cases among us, as fully to the point as 
the Heathen nations. They are the deaf and dumb per- 
sons, who occasionally attain to the years of understand- 
ing, before they receive the benefits of education. These 
persons, when made capable of receiving and communi- 
cating ideas, have fully established the fact, that previous 
to instruction, they were totally ignorant of the doctrines 
of the Christian Religion. 

These facts prove conclusively that the doctrines of 
Christianity are conveyed to mankind by the Scriptures, 
And if we derive a knowledge of these doctrines from 
the Scriptures, then the Scriptures must be the Rule by 
which doctrines are to be examined. I think this con- 
clusion is as clear as a mathematical demonstration. 

The Document proceeds to pronounce, that the grace 
spoken of, Titus 2. 11, is the Holy Spirit. 

But the simple meaning of the word Grace^ is Favour^ 
and applies to that unmerited goodness of God, in which 
the means of redemption were provided through Jesus 
Christ our Lord. But in addition to the literal meaning 
of the original Greek word, [charis^ it is clear that the 
meaning which the Friends have imposed upon the pas- 
sage cannot be correct; because if all men have the grace 
in the sense contended for, then all men have the teaching 
G 



50 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

described by the Apostle. And this embraces the peculiar 
doctrines of Christianity- — "looking for that blessed hope, 
[the hope of the Gospel], and the glorious appearing of 
the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ who gave him- 
self for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and 
purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good 
works." But these peculiar doctrines of the Christian 
religion, are not taught where the Scriptures have never 
been carried. 

The writers of the document fell directly into the error 
of Hicksism, in confounding the distinction between Christ 
and the Hol^ Spirit; and again in making these divine 
characters identical with a "universal Inward Light." — - 
This was strictly the theory of Elias Hicks, and this is 
the doctrine plainly stated in the document before us* 
After giving the definition to grace, already noticed, they go 
on to apply to it, the very language used in Scripture with 
direct application to Jesus Christ^ — "he that followeth 
him, shall not walk in darkness, but have the Light of 
Life." I believe it is the first time that I ever &aw the 
masculine pronoun him applied to grace. 

But the grammatical error is of little importance, com- 
pared with the doctrinal heresy contained in it. It changes 
the view of the character of Christ, and must, when car- 
ried out, result in all the objectionable notions for which, 
but a few years before, Elias Hicks and his friends were 
broadly charged with Infidelity, 

It is one of the peculiar features of that unsoundness, 
which has been the besetting sin of Quakerism, to lead 
the mind from that simple Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
which is so clearly set forth in the Scriptures, to a system 
of mysticism, under the delusive idea of superior spiritu^ 
ality. And that feature is most distinctly brought out in 
the document. 

1 he occasional acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, is not 
a, sufficient safeguard against the effects of the mysticism 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 51 

of which I have been speaking. We know that such ac- 
knowledgments were freqaentlj made by EHas Hicks. 
But what did they, or what can thej amount to, when the 
character of Christ is merged into that of a mere "mzoGr^i 
'principle^'' and the beUef in the efficacy of his blood, shed 
upon the Cross, is lost in the notion of the presence of "a 
pure, spiritual, invisible principle'' in man? 

The Apostles preached, and the Primitive Believers 
received the doctrine, that Jesus w^as the Christ the Son 
of God, that believing they might have life through his 
name. It was upon this point that the important ques- 
tion turned, on which depended the acceptance or rejec- 
tion of the promised Messiah, It was not the recognition 
of an "inward principle," in all men, that was agitated 
before Pilate, v/iien the cry of the Chief Priests and 
Rulers of the Jews resounded through the Hall, "crucify 
him, crucify him." No- — it was the "man of sorrows"^ — 
w^ho was despised, rejected, buffeted and spit upon— ^ 
crowned with thorns, and crucified between two thieves — ' 
who bore our sins in his own body upon the Tree — -and 
under the weight of that load, which none other could 
have borne, exclaimed, "My God, my God, why hast thou 
forsaken me?" He died for our sins, and his precioui 
blood was shed upon the Cross, in that one offering whicli 
he made when he offered up himself. On that ever-me- 
morable occasion, which will swell the anthems of the 
redeemed in heaven, — when the Son of God, was wound- 
ed for our transgressions, was bruised for our iniquities — 
when it pleased the Lord to bruise him, — to make his 
soul an offering for sin — and to lay upon him the iniquity 
of us all — the sun was darkened — the earth quaked, the 
rocks w^ere rent, and the vail of the temple was rent from 
the top to the bottom. 

The impressive language of an inspired Apostle point- 
ed, in unequivocal terms, to this same suffering Jesus, 
*'whom," saith he, "God hath raised up, having loosed the 



5:2 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

pains of death, because it was not possible, that he should 
be holden of it." '^Therefore, let ail the house of Israel 
know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom 
ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." 

Such was the simple, plain, and powerful preaching of 
the Apostles— so they preached, and so the saints believed. 
They preached Jesus Christ as a person^ and not as an 
inward principle. The term principle is not applied to him 
in the whole New Testament. But what have we gained, 
by our "refined spirituality." Only a few years ago, one 
third at least of the whole Society in the United States, 
was separated from those called the Orthodox, on the very 
ground of this mystical representation of the character of 
Chnst, of his body a.nd blood. And now the remainder 
of that Society, is following with rapid strides, in the foot- 
steps of those they so recently disowned; and by official 
documents, Tracts^ preaching, and the revival and earnest 
recommendation of unsound parts of the writings of Ear- 
ly Friends, is spreading the very same doctrines, like an 
overwhelming torrent — bearing down every thing that 
opposes it. 

The reader should bear in remembrance that the Bea- 
con, against which such an fcxcitement was raised through 
the length and breadth of the Society, was a refutation 
of the doctrines of Ellas Hicks ; among which the perver- 
sion of the character of Christy and of his body and blood, 
stood pre-eminent. The alarm was spread in every direc- 
tion, that Quakerism was endangered — and with this book 
before their eyes — and for the purpose of rendering it 
altogether odious, the document was issued: plunging the 
Society into the very vortex of that heresy, from which it 
was just rising. 

The Document goes on to declare what the Society 
believes of our Lord Jesus Christ. And £is they were con- 
demning an able refutation of the doctrines of EUas Hicks, 
if they did not themselves hold those doctrines, they 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 53 

should, in the clearest manner, have shown the difference 
between those they intended to maintain, and those held 
by Ehas Hicks and his friends. And this was the more 
necessary, as the first principles of the doctrine of Christ 
were immediately involved. 

The character of Jesus Christ, the efficacy of his death, 
the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, and the duty 
of Prayer, being prominent parts of the Beacon, in oppo- 
sition to Elias Hicks, if the Society was sound on these 
doctrines, the Meeting for Sufferings should have placed 
that soundness beyond all question. But we have seen^ 
that in the definition given to grace^ they have directly 
fallen into the primary error of Elias Hicks. We come 
now to what they say of Christ. Speaking of Early 
Friends, they say; "They believed, as the Society ha.s 
done down to the present day, that whatsoever Christ did, 
in his outward manifestation, both living and dying, was 
of great benefit to the salvation of all that have believed; 
and that now do and hereafter shall believe in him unto 
justification and acceptance with God." 

And is this all? Did not the Meeting for Sufferings 
think the company of their Philadelphia friends at that 
time, a great benefit? And yet these comynon place terms, 
are to cover the whole ground, of all that Christ did, 
both living and dying, I ask if this is not the very ground 
of the sinner's hope? Did not Christ bear the load which 
otherwise would have crushed us down to everlasting 
ruin? Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our 
sorrows. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he 
was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our 
peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. 
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every 
one to his own way, and the Lord has laid upon him the 
iniquity of us all. He bore our sins in his own body on 
the tree, and died for our sins, the just for the unjust, that 
he might bring us to God — we were reconciled to God by 



54 PROCEEDINCJS AND PRINCIPLES OP 

the death of his Son. And being justified by his bloody 
we shall be saved from wrath through him. And there is 
none other name under heaven, given amongst men, 
whereby we must be saved. Does all this, and more than 
men or angels can describe besides, call for no more than 
this familiar, common place form of expression, a great 
benefit? Saints on earth, and the redeemed in Heaven, 
will make, in very dirfercnt language, their acknowledg- 
ments of whatsoever the Lord Jesus Christ did, both living 
and dying. "In whom we have redemption through his 
blood, even the forgiveness of sins." "Having therefore 
boldness to enter into Vae Holiest by the Blood of Jesus, 
by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for 
us through the vail, that is to say, bis flesh, and having an 
high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a 
true heart, in full assurance of faith." "Thou wast slain, 
and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood!" But it may 
be said tbat the passage under review was a quotation 
from William Penn. Those who are acquainted with the 
writings of that great man, know very well, that with all 
his abilities, and ail his excellent qualities, he was a most 
unstable writer. Passages, the most incongruous, and 
contradictory to each other, may be selected from bis 
writings. At one time he declares that "nothing we can 
do, though by the help of the Holy Spirit being able to 
cancel old debts and wipe out old scores: It is the power 
and cfticacy of that propitiatory offering [the sufferings 
and death of the Lojd Jesus Christ] that Justifies us from 
the sins that are past" — and at another, as in the Sandy 
Foundation Shaken, he treats the whole doctrine of "sa- 
tisfaction" and atonement, with the most revolting levity 
and ridicule. I will not transcribe in this place the argu- 
ments which he uses, to explode the doctrine of the suffering 
of Christ as a satisfaction — or means of procuring the re- 
mission of our sins. He takes precisely the same grounds 
which are taken by professed Infidels, and ridicules the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 55 

hotion of the innocent suffering for the guilty, &c. &c. 
At one time he declares that we distinguish^ but we do 
not divide between Jesus o( Nazareth and Christ; and at 
another, without the least retraction or acknowledgment 
of error, asserts that we do not distinguish or divide, be- 
tween Jesus of Nazareth and Christ. 

Of the apparent acknowledgment of the character of 
Jesus Christ, in this passage, and the efficacy of his Blood, 
Ishall say something more, when I come to speak of the 
manner in which William Penn and others explained their 
views of Christ, and of his Blood. For the present I shall 
briefly remark, that there is a most palpable defect in this 
passage, in regard to the way of coming to true faith in 
Christ. They do not so much as name the Scriptures, as 
being concerned in bringing us to true faith. It is the 
light of Christ in the conscience, and to turn our minds, 
and bring all our deeds and thoughts to it, that is the readi- 
est, nay, the onI;i/ right way to have true, living and sanc- 
tifying faith in Christ. 

But as the light in the conscience does not reveal to 
any (independent of the Scriptures) that there ever was 
sUch a person as Jesus of Nazareth, not to say, that he 
was the Son of God, and that he died upon the cross, a 
sacrifice for our sins — and rose again from the dead, and 
is passed into heaven — there to appear in the presence of 
God for us — if we do not accept the R.ecord which God 
has given of his Son, the Son himself cannot be an object 
of our faith; as said the apostle: "How shall they call on 
him, in whom they have not believed? and how shall they 
believe in him of whom they have not heard ?" To make 
Faith entirely dependent on the light of conscience, alto- 
gether independent of the Scriptures, or without them, 
is plainly to have only such a Faith, if Faith it can be 
called, as is held by heathen nations that never heard of 
the doctrines of revelation. And to inculcate such a no- 
tion here, is directly to let down the importance of the 



56 PROCEEDINGS ANB PRINCIPLES OF 

Fundamental doctrines of Christianity, and build up a sys- 
tem, destitute of Christ; a cold, a heartless system of mo* 
rality, depending only on that light which men in a state 
of nature have. 

We now come to what the Meeting thought proper to 
be said specially of the Holy Scriptures. The Beacon 
had claimed them as the Rule of Faith and Practice. This 
the Meeting had zealously denied. The first pubHc at- 
tack on the Beacon in England, was in a printed Letter, 
written by Thomas Thompson of Liverpool. In that Let- 
ter he confined himself to two points; one was, to 
deny the conclusive authority of Scripture, the other 
was, to object to the Beacon, as bringing into view the 
doctrines of EIia,s Hicks. On the former point he dis- 
tinctly denied the correctness of the authorized version 
of 1 Tim. 3. 16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of 
God." Thomas Evans, in his letter to B. W. Ladd, of 
4th month 25th, 1835, which was extensively circulated 
in MS. in this country, notices this Letter with evident 
approbation, calling the writer "a worthy Elder of Liver- 
pool." 

Thomas Evans and B. W. Ladd were both actively 
concerned in getting up the document, and with a know- 
ledge, and apparent approval of Thomas Thompson's 
denial, that all scripture is given by inspiration of God — 
they quote into the document, a part of the very text in 
question, with the portion of it to which T. T. objected, 
entirely omitted. They say : "This state of silent introver- 
sion and waiting on the Lord, will be a suitable qualifica- 
tion for the profitable perusal of the precious passages of 
Holy Scripture, a practice which we recommend to the 
daily observance of all; believing that they are — ^"profita- 
ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
in righteousness." 

Why did they leave out the part declaring that "^// 
Scripture is given by Inspiration of God^^'' and begin at 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. ^ 

'^profitahle ?" The sentence which thej had framed, as 
well as the jnatiire of the subject, demanded that the 
iQxi should not be mutilated, and the very part which de- 
clared the divine authority of the Scriptures, struck off. 
The omission, with the circumstances of the case, carries 
on the face of it, a virtual denial of the doctrine con- 
tained in the omitted part of the text. 

As the Document stands, it recognizes neither the 
whole of the Scriptures, nor even 3,part of them, as giv- 
en by iiispiration of God, nor as binding in the doctrines 
they, contain. They had previously passed them entirely 
over, as having anyplace in the means of bringing us to the 
doctrines they contain. And while another Rule is claimed, 
and the Scriptures professedly held secondary and subordi- 
nate to that, a scriptural reformation in the Society will be 
defeated. Individuals, and especially the junior mem- 
bers, may break the fetters in which they are bound, and 
lay hold of the Faith once delivered to the Saints, but the 
Society, in its official character, must cease to be what it 
is, before it can be established in the doctrines and prac- 
tices of the Apostles. 

I was present in the Meeting for Sufferings, when the 
subject of the Document was introduced, and objected 
to it. But this was regarded as a high offence, and they 
went on. I did not attend that meeting afterwards, nor 
did I interfere with their proceedings when they were 
introduced into the Yearly Meeting. They made the 
Document just what they would have it to be, and the 
foregoing are some of its capital errors. 

Soon after the Yearly Meeting, I obtained from Short 
Creek Monthly Meeting a certificate to attend the Year- 
ly Meeting of Indiana. B. W. Ladd hearing of my in- 
tentions, wrote the following Letter, and sent it by a 
young man who, with some others, intended to go in com- 
pany with me. 



58 PROCEEDINGS AND TRINCIPLES O^ 

"Smithfield, O., 9 month 25tb, 1835, 
"Dear Friends — 

"We have had a large and favoured Yearly Meetings 
attended by several valuable friends from other yearly 
meetings. Many subjects of importance were resulted, 
I trust, to the honour of Truth, and in accordance with 
the ancient principles a.nd doctrines of friends. Two of 
these I will name, the first in magnitude relates to an at- 
tack made upon some of our fundamental doctrines, iii 
the late publication of a Book, written by a minister cr{ 
our society in England, Isaac Crewdson — The work is 
entitled, "A Beacon to the Society of Friends." If yoa 
have seen the Book, you no doubt have been struck and 
pained too, to observe that the author says, in oppositioft 
to Barclay, and all our worthy forefathers in the truth, 
page 8. "Now the Holy Spirit cannot, in any proper 
sense, be denominated a Rule." Page 9. "therefore 
there can be no higher rule than the Holy Scriptures." 
In pursuing the work, other parts are quite as objectiona- 
ble, such as limiting the grace of God to the circulation 
of the Holy Scriptures; disparaging silent worship, &e. 

"Hence the late Yearly Meeting of London issued a 
tnost excellent Epistle, addressed to their Quarterly and 
Monthly Meetings, particularly pressing upon the notice 
0[ their members, a close attention to those peculiar doc- 
trines which have ever distinguished our religious society. 
This valuable Epistle our Yearly Meeting thought it 
right to print in connection with the General Epistle. — 
Our Meeting for Sufferings, from deep concern, appre- 
bended it right to take notice of the Beacon, and the 
dissemination of the dangerous principles advocated in it; 
and issued a minute expressive of our concern, &c. This 
minute was brought before the Yearly Meeting, and be- 
ing fully united with, was directed to be printed in our 
minutes, as you Avill see, should they reach you in time. 
I am sorry to sav that our dear friend Elisha Bates did 



TIIE gOClSTY OF FRIENDS, ^ 

strongly oppose the raeeting for suiFerings, taking up this 
subject. And I am equally pained at heart to know that 
the Beacon party in England claim him to he of their 
number. One thing is certain, that since his return from 
England he has advocated sentiments somewhat in char- 
acter with those of the Beacon^ — one i would mention, 
that he does not feel himself bound to respect the writings 
of our early standard Authors, any further than they ac- 
cord with his understanding of the doctrines of Christ and 
his Apostles. (This sentiment, if adhered to, will lead 
to a separation. All Christian sects claim to be founded 
upon the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, and yet we 
know they are divided). " This confession he will readily 
make to you, if candid. I write thus freely, and without 
reserye, and you are perfectly at liberty to show him my 
letter. My object in being thus plain is, to give you an 
understanding of the state of things, painful as they are. 
If you take i-p the subject of the Beacon in your Meeting 
for Sufferings, which I heartily wishyou may have strength 
to do, that these new notions, or Episcopalian doctrines, 
may find no more entertainment in our Religious Society 
now, than they did in its rise, and during the time of our 
faithful worthies, who by deep suffering purchased for us 
our high profession. I say, if you approach this subject, 
I have little doubt but he will use bis influence to draw 
you off from the subject. It is one, from the account* 
received from England, which has involved the sincere 
hearted there in deep suffering, and if persisted in here, 
will inevitably lead to another separation, and to the dis- 
ownment of some of our brightest and most gifted instru- 
ments." 

The next paragraph relates to Indian affairs, which is 
the other subject, to which the writer refers in the begin- 
ning of the letter. He then proceeds: 

"James Smith can inform you of the state of things in 



00 pRoci:E:i)i;i<i3 x^d principles of 

our Yearly Meeting, &c. I think he took a copy of the 
Beacon to dear Charles Osborn. 

"In the love of the Truth, I remain your friend 

BENJ. W. LADD." 

The reader will observe the strain in which the writer 
sets out, to give an imposing character to the transactions 
of the Meeting for Sufferings, and of the Yearly Meeting, 
For a meeting to be "Favoured," in the estimation of a 
friend, is equivalent to proof, that its decisions, at least in 
the general, were divinely directed and sanctioned. Es- 
tablish this point, and all reasoning on the propriety or 
impropriety of those things which were done, under di- 
vine Favour, must be at an end. But what are the evi- 
dences of this favour? Why, plainly for matters to be 
carried as the party wished. 

In speaking of the Yearly Meeting, the writers mind 
was particularly impressed with the company of his Phila- 
delphia Friends, as materially conducive to the results, 
which he regarded so much to the honour of Truth, &:c.. 

1 say, Philadelphia Friends^ because I know that three 
ministers who w-ere here from other places, were regarded 
with very great coldness: and that on account of their 
preaching mainly, the same doctrines which I did j. in re- 
gard to the authority of the Holy Scriptures — the obliga- 
tion which rests upon us, to study them, — Justification 
by Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, — and the practical duty 
of prayer. I know that a prominent minister of this 
Yearly Meeting, manifested an open, and .unrelenting 
disunity towards one of those ministers, and indignantly 
refused to grant an interview which was requested for the 
purpose of reconciliation — that another of them was 
treated with rudeness^ and the third received both here 
and in Indiana, a coldness and incivility, to say the least 
of it, that was extremely disgraceful. 

' The ancient principles and doctrines of Friends, form the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 61 

standard which the writer of this letter had in his mind. 

The subject first in magnitude, v/hich had been result- 
ed at this large and favoured Yearly Meeting, was the 
document of wrhich I have just been speaking. 

In adverting to the Beacon, the object which he had 
chiefly in view was, to counteract the arguments which I, 
Crewdson had used, to bring the Society to a practical 
acknowledgment of the authority of the Scriptures, as 
the Rule of Faith' and Practice. For this purpose he 
garbled two passages, and dragged into his service, 
"Barclay and all our worthy forefathers in the truth." — ' 
The first passage in the Beacon referred to, is as follows: 

"Now the Holy Spirit caniwt^ in a,ny proper sense^ be 
denominated a rule. [Thus to have designated Him, 
has evidently arisen from misapprehension of terms, and 
has led to confusion of ideas: for. whilst we reverently and 
thankfully acknowledge the Holy Spirit to be the great 
a-gent in the believer, through vrhom his sanctification is 
effected, it is plain that the Rule must be that wlrioh pro- 
ceeds from the Spirit, and not the Holy Spirit himself.— 
To speak of the Holy Spirit as a rule, involves the same 
incongruity as to speak of God as a rule.]" Bea-con, 2nd 
ed. Address, p. 7. 8, 

All that part of the paragraph enclosed in brackets, 
was omitted by B, W. L., and for very obvious reasons. 
The argument contaaned in it, is so clear and convincing, 
as to set refutation at defiance. Neither B. W. L., nor 
any of his valuable friends, have ventured, in manly in- 
vestigation, to set aside the position here laid down. In- 
stead of this, he took a fragment of the paragraph, shrunk 
behind "Barclay and all our worthy forefathers in the 
Truth," and thought himself secure by such a fortifica- 
tion. 

It is true that Ba.rclav and others advanced the notion, 
and tried to defend it, that the Holy Spirit is the Primary 
Rule of Faith and Practice. Bui when the pen" of Brown 



Oa PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

was applied to him, he started from the ground he had 
taken, and made the following remarkable declaratiom 
*"For I was never so absurd as to call God, simpij.consid- 
ered, or the Spirit of God in abstracto (not as imprinting 
truths to be believed and obeyed in men's hearts, not. 
contrary, but according to Scripture, for he cannot contra- 
dict himself), the rule of Christians." Works, fol. 752. 

Here, though he endeavours still to hold to the opinion, 
that the immediate dictation of the Spirit is the Rule^ he 
totally abandons, as absurd, the notion that God, simply 
considered, or the Spirt of God, abstrdctly, could be "called 
the Rule of Christians." Every, man of sense, and of 
impartiality, must see at once, that if Barclay did not ac- 
knowledge the Scriptures to be the Rule, nor give up the 
notion of an inv/ard Rule, he certainly did fully concede 
that the Holy Spirit could not in aily proper sense be de- 
nominated a Rule—^nd that it would be absurd so to 
denominate either God, or the Spirit of God, strictly ; 
speaking. 

On the evening after the Meeting for Sufferings, in 
which the Beacon was taken up, I cited to B. W. Ladd 
the foregoing passage from Robert Barclay. To make 
such a reference to Barclay as he did in his Letter, with 
a knowledge of the declaration which Barclay made on 
the very point in question, v/as not candid, to say the least 
of it. And to garble the quotation from the Beacon, 
shows an obliquity of intention, altogether incompatible 
with the love of Truth. 

His next quotation from the Beacon is equally garbled 
and unfair. As given by Isaac Crewdson, it is the last 
member of a syllogism. 

The whole passage stands thus: 

"There can be no higher rul6, than that which is given 
by inspiration of God. 

Ail scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Tim* 
3, 16. 



TKE SOCIETY OF FKIENDS. 6S 

Therefore- there can be no higher rule than the Holj 
Scriptures." 

Now I ask if B. W. L, can be defended as having acted 
fairly, and with even the appearance of a desire for the 
Truth to be elicited and held, in making the garbled quo- 
tation which he did? Why not present the argument 
from which the conclusion was dravrn ? Plainly because 
it was calculated to carry conviction, and he was not able 
to refute it. 

To show the retrograde movement which has taken 
place in the Society, in reference to the authority of 
Scripture, I will quote a few passages, from a Pamphlet, 
which was published by Orthodox Friends of Philadel- 
phia, in 1824. The title page is as follows: "Letters and 
Observations relating to the ContToversy respecting the 
Doctrines of Elias Hicks; Containing a Review of his 
Letter to Dr. N. Shoemaker. Third Edition Revised. 
Philadelphia: Printed for the Reader. 1824." It con- 
tains several Letters, with the names of the writers; but 
both the author a,nd printer of the Pamphlet, have thought 
proper to conceal their names. Why was this caution 
in defending the cause of Christ? Plainly because it 
Was published some years before the division of the Socie- 
ty, and our Philadelphia Friends, in coming forward 
boldly against errors, which they believed were calculated 
to sap the very Foundation of Christianity — could not 
obtain the sanction of the Meeting for Sufferings; and 
were afraid to be known as the authors of the pieces 
they published, lest the Hicksites should put in force 
against tkem^ the same rule of Discipline which their inti- 
mate friends in this country have turned against me, — viz. 
for publishing without the revision of the Meet'ng for Suf- 
ferings. 

Thus sheltered in concealment, with nothing to fear; 
and with minds stirred up to the importance of those doc- 
trines which were then called in question, let us hear 



64 PROCEEDiriGS AJnD PRINCIPLES OF 

what they said on the conclusive authority .of Scripture. 
Whether the writer of the Pamphlet above mentioned 
was Thomas Evans or not, I shall leave for himself to de- 
termine. In the Review of E. Hicks' Letter to Dr. Na- 
than Shoemaker, the author says: "As Elias Hicks ap- 
peals to the Holy Scriptures, as the authority for his opin- 
ions, and professes to predicate his arguments upon them 
we shall assume it as ^ra^te^ that their authority is yt7ia//^ 
conclusive,'''' "We view them as the only legitimate test of 
our respective sentiments, and to be consistent with his 
own 'practice <f he must concur with us in such judgment.— ~ 
In the following pages, therefore. Scripture language 
must be the umpire between us." p. 43. 

Here the authority of Scripture is declared to he final- 
ly conclusive — the only legetimate test of conflicting opin- 
ions — and Scripture language was to be the umpire be- 
tween them. There was no idea held out that E. H. was 
at liberty to appeal to the rule in his own mind, nor to 
those writings of early Friends, which have since been 
held up as the depositories of the true meaning of Scrip- 
ture. No, it was the authority, of Scripture, and the Lan- 
guage of Scripture, that was to be finally conclusive. 

But the writer of the Pamphlet says: "Our blessed Re- 
deemer tells us himself, and there can be no higher au- 
thority,'''' ip, 44, Where does he tell us so? Plainly in 
the Scriptures, Wherein then does this passage fall short 
of the line, quoted with so much disapprobation from the 
Beacon ? The sentiment was sound and satisfactory to 
the Orthodox in 1824. In the short space of eleven 
years it is regarded with indignation- — an excitement is 
spread from London to Indiana, and private Letters and 
public documents are put in requisition, lest the ancient 
principles and doctrines of the Society, should sink into 
insignificance, by the full and free admission of the Holy 
Scriptures. 

B. W. Ladd go.es on to say : "Other parts of the work 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 65 

ai'e quite as objectionable, such as limiting the grace of 
God to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures, disparaging 
silent worship, &c." Rut he makes no quotations from 
the Beacon, in support of the statement. Those who 
would examine the subject for themselves, are referred to 
the "Beacon," the "Defence of the Beacon," &c. 

"Hence" says he, *'the late Yearly Meeting of London 
issued a most excellent Epistle," &c. 

In that Epistle it is said: "Whilst thus alluding to our 
predecessors in religious profession, we would earnestly 
but affcctionally recommend to our dear friends generally 
but especially to those in early life, the frequent and se- 
rious perusal of their w^ri tings; replete as they are with 
instructive evidence of the sufficiency of that foundation 
upon which it was their concern to build, and eminently 
calculated, as we believe they a,re, to impress the mind 
with a deep sense of the importance of the experimental 
work of religion on the heart." 

Here we have an earnest recommendation of the wri- 
tings of early Friends, without any limitation or excep- 
tion. In a subsequent part of this work, I shall show some 
sentiments that were thus recommended to friends gener- 
ally, but especially to those in early life. At present I 
need only to say that this Epistle, though addressed ex- 
clusively to the members of London Yearly Meeting, was 
taken up bj^ Ohio Yearly Meeting, out of the usual order 
of proceeding, and not only thus adopted, but sent down 
to its individual members. But the General Epistle of 
1836 which contains the best declaration of the a,uthority 
of the Holy Scriptures, that the Society ever made — 
though according to the long established usage of the So- 
ciety, addressed to the Quarterly and Monthly Meetings 
of Friends in Great Britain, Ireland and Elsewhere, was 
not permitted by Ohio Yearly Meeting, to go to its sub- 
ordinate Meetings, to which it was directed. But the 
former contained a strong and general recommendation 



66 PHOCEEDINGS Ax\D PRINCIl»LES 6F 

of the writings of early Friends, the latter, a decIaratiM 
of the authority of Holy Scripture. 

The allusion in the letter, to the concern of the Meeting: 
for Sufferings, must appear in rather a .ridiculous point of 
view, to impartial persons, who are acquainted with the 
facts of the case. A paper got up as this was — contain^ 
ing an exposition of terms so incompatible with every 
principle of sound criticism — setting forth sentiments so 
subversive of the doctrines of the Gospel, to be represent- 
ed, in the peculiar phraseology of the Society, as arising 
from deep concern, canrnot be a very prepossessing exhibi- 
tian, to any but Conservative Friends, 

But the Meeting for Sufferings thought it right^to take 
notice of the Beacon, "and the dissemination of the dan- 
gefous principles advocated in it." Joseph John Gurney 
acknowledged the Beacon to be an able defence of the 
fundamental doctrines of Christianiiy; and the Yearly 
Meeting's committee, after months of investigation, aban- 
doned the doctrinal objections to the work. Here then 
we have B. W. L. and the Meeting for Sufferings, aided 
byT. Evans, &c., considering the principles advocated in 
the BeacOn as dangerous, but J. J. G. regarding the 
work as an able defence of fundanicntal doctrines, and 
the whole committee giving up doctrinal objections. 

And now a very grave question must arisen Did J. J. G» 
and the others of the committee of London Yearly Meet- 
ing, make these consessions to a work that advocated dan- 
gerous principles? Or did the Meeting for Sufferings, 
and the friends of Ohio and Philadelphia, characterize ail" 
able defence of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, 
as advocating dangerous principles? These two great 
divisions of Conservatives, are here directly at issue. 

But this not all. In the Monthly Meeting in Manches- 
ter, 9th mo. 15, 1836, Joseph John Gurney, on behalf of 
the Yearly Meeting's Committee, said: "It might be re- 
membered that Vt the special Monthly Meeting held irt 



^IIE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 67 

IStli Month last, the Yearlj Meeting's Committee had 
then stated that they" did not feel called upon to recom- 
mend to the Monthly Meeting to take any proceedings in 
I, Crewdson's case with reference to' the doctrina,! ques- 
tion ; he said they were one with Isaac Crewdson in doctrine^'' 

!«feC. 

That there is much inconsistency in the proceedings of 
the Yearly Meeting's Committee, in justifying the Doc- 
trines contained in the Beacon, a,nd condemning the au- 
thor, by a course of proceedings unknown to the Disci- 
pline, will readily he granted. But if the work contained 
dangerous principles^ as B. W. Ladd says it did, then the 
whole committee of London Yearly Meeting must fall un- 
der the censure of holding those principles, for J. J. G. 
their organ, publicly stated that they were '^one with 
Isaac Crewdson in doctrines." If, on the other hand, the 
doctrines contained in the Beacon are sound, then those 
v^'ho have charged it with containing ^^dangerous pritici- 
ples,''^ and have made war upon both the Vv'^ork and its au- 
thor, must be themselves unsound in doctrine, and un- 
christian in their practice. 

But these two classes of Concervative Friends, are un- 
derstood to be united, in the present course of measures 
going on in the Society. But what, it may be asked, can 
be the common bond of union between them? How can 
B. W. Ladd, T. Evans, &c, regarding the Beacon as an 
attack upon the fundamental doctrines of the Society — 
and as disseminating, and advocating dangerous principle s, 
unite with Joseph John Gurncy, Willian Forster and oth 
ers, who are one with Isaac Crewdson in doctrine? Or 
how can the latter unite with the former, in carrying on 
a system of proscription and disownment, which they 
know is levelled at the doctrines which they hold them- 
selves? However difficult it may be to answer tliese 
^piestions, one thing must be obvious — that there is an un- 
derslandlvg among the parties, that they on cither side, 



08 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

shall riot be made the subjects of proscription or disown- 
ment. Another fact cannot escape attention — that both 
sides have determined to sustain the writings of the early 
Friends, without correction or expurgation. And on this 
ground, there is no doctrine held by those caJledthe Hicks- 
ites, none maintained by the Orthodox, (so called,) and 
conservative Friends, but may receive a ready defence. 
This is, in reality, the sheet anchor of the Society, in main- 
taining its peculiar views-, the shelter for the individual 
members, who cannot "endure sound doctrine." Grant 
thatthe Early Friends were in error on some points, and 
that a Scriptural examination should be made— rejecting 
whatever will not abide that-test; and ail the Conserva- 
tive Friends know full Vv^ell, that the Society cannot stand 
on its present basis. And hence the efforts now making 
to unite all parties, to contend — not for the doctrines of 
Christ and his Apostles — but for the views of George Fox 
and Early Friends. Even that best of tlie documents of 
the Society — the declaration contained in the Epistle of 
London Yearly Meeting of 1836, relating to the authori- 
ty of the Holy Scriptures, discovers a most intense solici- 
tude on the pajrt of the meeting, not to sujQfer the views of 
Early Friends to be called in question. Hence also the 
sentiment expressed in the letter before us. finds so ready 
an admission, so wide a range, and so rhany open advo-- 
cates in the Society. 

"One thing is certain, [says B. W. Ladd] that since 
his return from England, he has advocated sentiments 
somewhat in character with those of the Beacon — one I 
will mention, that he does not feel himself bound to re- 
spect the writingsof our early Standard authors any fur- 
ther than they accord with his understanding of the doc- 
trines of Christ and his Apostles, (this sentiment if ad- 
hered to will lead to a separation. All Christia.n sects 
cl^im to be founded upon the doctrines of Christ and his 
Apostles, and yet we know they arc divided.) This con- 
fession he will readily make to you if candid." 



THE SOCIETY or FRIENDS. 69 

The agreement between this sentiment, which he charges 
on me, and those of the Beacon, is plainly in practically 
maintaining the authority of the Holy Seriptures. It is 
one thing to admit their authority occasionally, in words; 
and another to carry it out in practice. It was not the 
question in the case before us, whether, The Rule of Faith, 
or Standard of doctrines should be an outward or an in- 
ward one. It was plainly whether our Early Standard 
Authors, or Christ and his Apostles, are to be regarded 
bj^ .us, as of the highest authority. 

I do not know from what particular conversation of 
mine he drew the conclusion here stated. It might possi- 
bly have been from that which occurred in the interview, 
which he had with me in the 2nd month proceeding, in 
which he said: "That if I went beyond Early Friends I 
would be a Reformer and carry off a party." And on. my 
replying that I should endeavour to keep very close to the 
Scriptures, he replied "No, the writings of our Early 
Friends are something that has risen up between us and 
the Scriptures, and we must not go beyond them." To 
this I objected: and he might very naturally have drawn 
the inference, that I did not hold myself bound, to respect 
the writings of our early Standard authors any further 
than they accorded with my understanding of the doc- 
trines of Christ and his Apostles. In a.ddition to this, he 
was present during a part of a conversation, which I had 
with Thomas Evans, at my own house, at the commence- 
ment of the Yearly Meeting, that year; in which T object- 
ed to some parts of the writings of the Early Friends; such 
as Pe nn's Sandy Foundation Shaken ; and the same wri 
ter's distinguishing between Jesus of Nazareth and Christ 
. — and saying — ''''But that the outtcard person that suffered, 
was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny,'''' 

I recollect no conversation touching the subject of the 
authority of Friends' Writings, either with B. W. Ladd, 
or in his presence, after this with T. Evans. And I am 



70 rnocEEDiAGs and ruiNciPLEs or 

strongly inclined to think it was llds^ that was in his mind; 
for it was one that was attended with unusual cxcitementc 
The conversatioij was begun a,t my tabic, by a friend pre- 
sent, (D. U.) asking T. Evans; If we were bound by all 
that the early friends had said? He replied' that we were- 
bound by the principles v/hich they held. And added 
■with considerable warmth, "If you do not like these prin- 
ciples, leave the ' Society,"''^ ' I wished to know, what we 
were to understand hy ih^ principles they held? And I 
mantioned the Sandy Foundation, and other matters 
above mentioned, to knovf if these things were included 
among the pri?zc?joZs5 by which we were bound? The of-^ 
fence taken at this was very strongly marked. 

In the charge made in the letter, which is virtually for 
my not prcf^ring the authority of' Early Friends to that 
of Christ a,nd his Apostles— the doctrine of the Inward 
Light, as the Primary Rule, istotaJly lost sight of, because 
it would have been impossible to havem.aintaincdTne con- 
clusive authority of an inward Rule^ in a case in which 
the understanding was decided on the doctrines of Christ 
and his Apostles, and at the same time to have enforced 
the superior claims of the writings of Early Friends, 
against the Letter of the Scriptures^ and the secret, n,nd en^ 
tire conviction of the mind. 

B.. W. Ladd's objection in the I^qHov under notice, is 
so Stated, as to set the writings of "our Early Standard 
Authors," above the plain and undeniable doctrines of 
Christ and his Apostles, and also, not the supposed^ but the 
reai testimony of the Spirit. That there are passages in 
the waitings of "the Standard Authors" alluded to, which 
are conirarij to the Scriptures, must be admitted by every 
candid person, who is acquainted with the subject, Every 
sentiment for which E. Ilicks was broadly charged with 
Infidelity, could be backed by quotation from Early 
Friends. And some passages could be found in their wri- 
tings, which go far beyond the language, if not the secret 



I'lII; SOCIETY OF rrtiE^Ds. 



7i 



ihougiits of E. H. What will the Friends think of 
George Fox's declaration in his Great Mystery, of Equal- 
ity with God? Or of the soul b'eing a part of God? Or 
his declaration in the Preface to his Battledore. "All 
language are to me no more than dust, y,^ho was before 
languages were?"' What will they say of W. Penn's ut- 
ter denial that the outward person that suffered was prop- 
erly the Son of God? How will they reconcile J. Hum- 
phrey's shocking reflections on a "Hum.an bodied Christ" 
— and his trying to make out that there is little difference 
between the Scriptures and the Devil, and finally that they 
are the Devil — and his grossly impious assertion, that "all 
things visible and invisible are God in a Lump ?" Or 
v/ill they stand by Barclay's notion of the Vehiculum Dei, or 
a pure. Spiritual invisible principle in man, in which God 
as Father Son and Spirit dwells? "Will they contend for 
Samuel Fishers;pretended Revekition, "from out of a hole 
in the Gate house in Westminster, through an earthen 
Vessel there imprisoned," in which he makes out that 
each good raan is one third annihila,ted and tv/o thirds saved 
— and each wicked individual, to be one third annihilated, 
one third saved, a,nd one third sent to perdition? Of these 
wild notions, I shall say something hereafter, to which I 
shall now refer the reader. Now } ttsk, can we doubt that 
the work of the Spirit, will deeply impress the minds of 
pious Christians, with the utter variance of these things, 
from the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles? If the di- 
rect witness of the Spirit is to be expected in an?/ case what- 
ever — if the understanding of man is ever opened by a 
divine illumination", to distinguish between Truth and Er- 
ror, we have reason to expect it in such a case as this. — 
Yet the authority of Early Friends is set up, in opposition 
to common sense, to Christ and his Apostles, and to the 
Holy Spirit! 

This Letter, it should be remembered, was written- by 
the Clerk of the Yearly Meeting, and the Clerk ^of the 



72 PROCEEOINOS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

Yearly Meeting of Ministers and Elders — He has since 
retained those appointments, and been put on committees 
not only of those tw^o meetings, but also on committees of 
the Quarterly Meeting, and the Quarterly Meeting of 
Ministers and Elders — -He is the most influential member 
of the Meeting for Sufferings: and of the committee by 
which the Boarding School is governed. I make these 
remarks,, not as reproachful to B. W. Ladd, for they show 
the high estimation in which he is held. But I do it as 
proof, that the Society is accountable for his known opin- 
ions. I do it also to show, the sentiments, out of which 
has arisen the strange excitement which has been raised 
in the Society. 

In such a state of things, I ask if we are not imperiously 
called upon to show the errors in the writings of the 
Friends? However mortifying the exhibition may be, 
the members of the Society, and the Qhristian public 
should know, that there are things contained in the writ- 
ings which are thus set up, as paramount to all authority, 
which conscience, common sense, and God himself forbid 
to be received as Truth. It should be known also, that 
by recent official proceedings, the maintenance of these 
things is made essential to the very existence of Quaker- 
ism. And further — that persons heretofore claiming to 
bold Evangelical Doctrines, and v/ho were supposed to 
hold them, have lent themselves, or given their names, 
their influence and their active exertions, to carry out the 
sentiments of which I have been speaking; and to estab- 
lish Quakerism on this false foundation. 

I ask if the very spirit and influence of the Letters of 
Margaret Fell and others, are not brought out into full 
operation, in the sentiment advanced in this Letter? Is 
it, in fact, any thing short of the character of Diety ascrib- 
ed to our Early Standard Authors, (of whom G. F. was 
chief) to set them above Christ and his Apostles, and all 
the Light which can be shed upon the understanding, to 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 73 

fix in the heart the obligation of their doctrines? If this 
is not /G?o/a^r^, what is? 

Let me appeal to the Society of Friends, to look to the 
position in which they are placed by their Leaders. What 
canyon expect as the result of the principles now held 
and broadly advocated in the Society ? 

The allusion to the divisions which exist in Christendom, 
is altogether fallacious: and if carried out, must result in 
a total abandonment of the Scriptures and of the Truth 
itself. It will virtually proceed upon the assumption, 
that there is no truth in Christianity — that all is but a par- 
cel of jarring and discordant systems, dependent on no 
principles of truth, and subject to no correction by any 
one common Standard. With what gratification will the 
/?i/i(^e/,lay hold of the sentiments advanced by B. W. L. 
as congenial with his feelings, and exactly in accordance 
with his most common strain of declamation against the 
truth of revealed religion ! 

Different, far different from the views of B. W. L. are 
the sentiments of the pious, oiall denominations with whom 
I have conversed. It is the almost universal sentiment 
with these, that there are, in all the various system of the 
different sects, some imperfections — some errors, which 
affect the unity, and mar the beauty of the Church of 
Christ. And it is a subject of frequent conversation, and 
of fervent prayer, that these discrepancies may be remov- 
ed — that the Church may be sanctified and cleansed by 
the washing of water by the Word^ and presented to Christ, 
a glorious Church, not having Spot or Wrinkle or any 
such thing. Even those/ezy, {and very few of this discrip- 
tion I have found,) who do not appear to have discovered 
any . defects in their own systems—take this ground : "We 
believe that our views are according to the testimony of 
the Scriptures — but we freely admit that we should search 
the Scriptures whether these thing are so. And if it 
K 



•74 PROCEEDINGS AND rRlNClPLES OF 

should be found, that in any thhxg we have deviated from 
the Word of God, it should by all means be corrected." 

I do not recollect to have met with one single individual,, 
out of the Society of Friends, for the last five years, that 
took more rigid sectarian grounds than this. So far as 
has fallen under my observcition, it is in the Society of 
Friends, and in that Society alone, that the peculiar views, 
of a sect, are set up as infallible, and not subject to cor- 
rection by the Word of God. 

The reasons B. W. L. gives for writing, plainly show 
that his object was to prepossess the minds of my friends 
against me, when I was travelling as a minister with the 
usual credentials from my friends at home, and that with- 
out once speaking to me on the subject. In this proceed- 
ure he not only acted an unmanly part, which the rules of 
common decorum should have forbidden, but he placed 
himself in direct opposition to the official acts of the Soci- 
ety, and trampled its order under foot. This transaction 
has long been known to the active members of the Society 
here, and so likewise have been the sentiments already no- 
ticed; yet so far has he been, from being called to account, 
either for the breach of discipline, or for the unsoundness 
of his sentiments, that he has been put on almost every 
committee on which he could be appointed, and actually 
directs the course of the proceedings of the Society. 

He goes on to express his hearts/ wish that the Meeting 
for Sufferings of Indiana, might take up the subject of 
the Beacon, which with all readiness they did; though 
Charles Osborn, William Hobbs, James White, and John 
Poole, acknowledged to me, that they "knew of but the one 
copy" of the work, which, from B. W. L.'s letter, had 
been sent to "dear Charles Osborn," for this very purpose. 

The writer seems, in his zeal on the present occasion, 
to have lost a little of his usual keenness of perception. 
He uses the terms "n^zo notions, or Episcopalian doctrines,''^ 
in order to cast an odium «pon the sentiments, which he 



TIIE SOCIETY or FRIENDS. 75 

had been so earnest to condemn. What was the most 
prominent of these? The maintaining of the para,mount 
authority of the Holy Scripturesx But is this a new notion? 
O yes, for it is an Episcopalian doctrine. But is not Epis- 
copaHanism older than Quakerism? If he would even 
apply the epithet Episcopalian'^ exckisivelj to the Church 
^f England — did not that Church exist before George 
Fox was born ? If the doctrines are Episcopalian, or iden- 
tical with those of the Church of England, (for I presume 
that was the idea he intended to convey), how can they be 
new notions? Will he acknowledge that he intends any- 
thing in accordance with George Fox's Preface to his 
Battledore, where he says: "All languages are tome no 
more than dust, ivho was before languages were'''' ? Here is 
an antiquity claimed, that renders the Scriptures them- 
selves, in comparison new. And v*'e are bTought to this 
%'cry point, for it is the divine authority of the Scriptures, 
w^hich stands out in every page of the Bible, that is the 
nezv notion^ against which this determined warfare is 
waged. 

But he heartily wishes, "that these new notions, or 
Episcopalian doctrines, may find no more entertainment 
in our religious society now, than they did in its rise, or 
"during the time of our faithful worthies, who by deep 
sufferings, purchased for us an high profession." 

But Vv^hat sort of entertainment had they at the time, and 
by the persons to whom this very solemn reference was 
made? Perhaps a single quotation from one of those 
^'faithful worthies," may throw some light upon the sub- 
ject. 

"fVhen synods and councils^ doting Doctors^ infatuated 
Ghostly Fathers^ and such as admired their persons, as they 
did the persons of the apostles and primitive disciples, 
began to bundle together what they could get of the writings 

♦Episcopalian, strictly means a form of Church Government^ 
recognizing Bishops, 



76 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

of such as were cutaneous zoith Christ and the Apostles, 
and, without any such order from either Christ or the 
Apostles, to canonize what in their conceits might be useful 
to others, as they had found them, tis Hke to themselves, 
into a Rule or Canon, and stated them into a common 
standard for all to have their sole recourse to, in soul-cases, 
and matters of christian faith and holy life, and to run 
a whoring after some remnants of writings that dropt from 
them in the whole world now called Christendom, instead 
of an apostolical spouse of Christ, as Christians were at 
first, presented a chaste Virgin to himself by them, there 
stands up an apostolical strumpet that had the Letter and 
good words written there," &c. Samuel Fisher, p. 494. 

For further examples, I refer the reader to a subsequent 
part of this work, where I intend to give some quotations 
from the writings of early Friends, on several points of 
doctrine. But it is evident, if we recur to such examples 
now, for the entertainment to be give.n to the doctrine of 
the authority of the Holy Scriptures, the Society must be 
recognized as occupying a position, in which none who 
have any regard for the Word of God, and the Testimony 
of Jesus Christ, will be willing to be identified. 

But these faithful worthies, by deep sufferings, pur- 
chased for us our high profession ! No profession that 
has not Christ for its author, is worth holding, by whom- 
soever, or at whatever expense of sufferings it may have 
been purchased. 

The thouspaids of self-devoted victims to the supersti- 
tions of the heathen world, so far from giving any value 
whatever to the error, increase the magnitude of the evil, 
and afford a powerful additional inducement to eradicate 
it altogether. And so, in regard to every shade of error, 
on subjects of religion. The truth or error of a doctrine, 
is that which demands our attention in the first place; 
and in deciding this question, the Scriptures must be ad» 
mitted to be finally conclusive — the only legitimate test— 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 77 

the language of Scripture must be the umpire. It is of 
importance, in such an examination, to be divested of pre- 
possession. To call up the sympathies of our nature, by 
appeals to the deep sufferings of our "dear forefathers," 
is to throw dust into our own eyes, at the very moment 
when the clearest vision is demanded. No man who re- 
ally wishes to find the truth, and to be delivered from ev- 
ery mistake into which our predecessors may, in human 
weakness, have fallen, will pursue such a course. But if 
he wishes to be bolstered up in the opinions of his fathers, 
^•right or wrong" — if he wishes to stifle conviction, and 
keep his own understanding bound in chains — this is the 
most effectual course he could possibly pursue. 

The subject, he says, "is one, from the accounts received 
from England, which has involved the sincere hearted 
there, in deep suffering, and if persisted in here, will in- 
evitably lead to another separation, and to the disown- 
meni of some of our brightest, and most gifted instru- 
ments." 

We have seen that the prominent objects in view of 
this writer, were, to deny the cibsolute and conclusive 
authority of the Holy Scriptures, in matters of Faith and 
practice— to establish the writings of early Friends as 
conclusive, even in cases in which they were believed not 
to be in accordance with the doctrines of Christ and his 
apostles ; and in intimate connection with these premises, 
(as will be more fully shown), to establish as the doctrines 
of Quakerism, the very opinions for which Elias Hicks 
and his friends were condemned as Infidels. The letter 
now before us shows, that there was .an understanding 
and concert, between the Conservatives in England, and 
in this country; and that if I and some others adhered to 
the offensive doctrines, disownment^ and even separation^ 
would be the consequence. He bestows on the advocates 
of the Bible, and of the doctrines contained in it, the 
high .character of being "the brightest and most gifted 



78 PROCEEDINGS AND TRINCIPLES OF 

instruments" in the Society. At the same time, he dis- 
closes the determination which had ah-eady been formed, 
to sacrifice them on the altar of Quakerism. This is but 
an echo of the sentence pronounced in Thomas Evans's 
Letter to me, of 7 mo. 25th, preceding. It has now been 
a Httle less than two years since these letters were 
written, and the writers, and the Society, in conformity 
with those decisions, first secretly formed, have steadily 
pursued the course which had been marked out, as to the 
final results, till now, / am made the Jirst victim selecte4 
for execution. And while I deplore the state of the So- 
ciety which I have so long and so ardently loved, and feel 
with full sensibility, the wounds inflicted in the houses of 
my friends, I thank God that he has counted me worthy 
to suffer for the cause of our Holy Redeemer; and has 
enabled me to endure the utmost stretch of their power, 
w^ithout compromise of principle, and without flinching,- 
And now I call upon my persecutors to come forward, and 
publicly defend the principles they have avowed, and the 
measures they have pursued, or make a formal recanta-^ 
lion. Their silence in such a case will show, that while 
they are conscious of the badness of their cause, they 
have not sufficient caudour to acknowledge the Truth, 
nor suflicient uprightness to do an act of simple justice, 
when they know they have committed injuries on person- 
al character and personal feelings. 

The reference to James Smith, shows how extensively 
private influence was exerted, to prepare the Society for 
action, on subjects, and on individuals, to carry out the 
designs of ruling members. James Smith is a member of 
Indiana Yeeirly Meeting, wlio had come to Mounipleas- 
ant, in company with a travelling minister. He had been 
made acquainted with "the state of things," and was re- 
lies! on to carry out representations which could not easily 
be made in writing. 

If James Smith had consented to be used as a tool Ji)f 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIE?fDS. 7^ 

such a purpose, which is strongly impHed in the letter,. it 
was very different from the- estimate which I had made of 
his character. 

The sending of the Beacon to "dear Charles Osborn,'' 
and the flattery that went along with it, to enlist his serv- 
ices, in carrying out the preconcerted plan of Philadelphia 
or English Conservatives, is only a small part of thai; in- 
geniGusly contrived machinery, which has so effectually 
moved a whole Society, by the hands of a fezu individuals* 



CHAPTER IL 



I HAVE been induced to give the narrative of my own 
case, with some minute details, not only because it is ne- 
cessary as a history of events, but because, from the fre- 
quent changes which have been made in the mode of 
attack, and the charges brought against me, and the pains 
which have been taken to mislead the public mind, there 
is danger of losing sight of the true grounds of dissatisfac- 
tion. And I wish the reader to bear this remark in re- 
membrance, as he passes along. • 

Benjamin W. Ladd's Letter, was shown to me by 
James Hunnicutt, immediately after he received it. He 
also kindly gave me a copy it. 

On reaching Richmond, in Indiana, I was informed that 
other letters had been spread through the Society, in that 
quarter, in order to make an unfavourable impression on 
the minds of Friends against me; of which, both as to 
the cause, and the effect, I very soon had additional evi- 
dence. 

This method of assassination of character, is disgraceful 
in the world,, — but when practiced and countenanced by 
the ruling members of a religious body, is proof positive 
of deep corruption. Wrong practices, and false princi- 
ples, often have an intimate connection; and in a// cases 
I believe it will be found, that where evil practices prevail^ 
sound principles are not duly regarded, if believed at all. 
It is also a striking proof of the divine origin of Christianity f 
that where its principles are sincerely held, there is a high 
standard raised for moral conduct. There is no toleration 
granted to any departure from uprightness,, no countenance 
given to falsehood and deceit. But where unsound prin- 



THE SOCIETY OF FHIENDS. 81 

ciples arc entertained, there may indeed be a sJiozc of 
moralitj, but its pretensions are ftilse, and its standing al- 
together uncertain ; and often, very often, the working 
out of evil practices, shows the badness of the foundation 
on which the building rests. Men do not gather grapes 
of thorns or figs of thistles. 

At the commencement of the Yearly Meeting in Indi- 
ana, Charles Osborn, William Hobbs, James White and 
John Pool, requested an interview with me. In that in- 
terview, Charles Osborn confessed that he had received 
letters from persons both in England, and America, un- 
favourable to my religious reputation, and which he ac- 
knowledged had had an effect on his mind. But I could 
not induce him to state what were the things laid to my 
charge, nor who were the writers. 

He had concieved a very strong dislike to Joseph John 
Gurney, and some other friends in England, on account of 
their views of certain doctrines, among which he men- 
tioned Justification and the Sabbath. The first of these 
engaged his most particular attention. It so happened, 
that I had neither conversed with J. J. G. on this subject, 
nor recently read the chapter on it, in his Essays on Chris- 
tianity. I was not therefore prepared to discuss J. J. G's. 
opinion on Justification, while C. O. expressed decided 
disapprobation of it. But though I declined, for obvious 
reasonsj to take up the opinions of persons with which I 
was not well acquainted, I declared my own sentiments 
with all frankness and freedom. Justification was the 
absorbing subject, and while C. O. was totally unable, or 
entirely declined, to controvert the explanations which I 
gave of my own views, it was perfectly evident, that he 
was no better pleased with mine, than he was with J. J. 
Gurney's. The interview lasted, I think as much as four 
hours: and ended without satisfaction to either party. — 
They evidently did not unite with my views of Justifica- 
L 



82 PROCEEmNGS AND PRINCIPLES OT 

tion: and I was grieved with their deficiency in sound 
dcrctrine, in Christian kindness, and fair deaUng. 

Through the whole course of the Yearly Meetings the 
treatment I received was entirely different from any thing 
I had ever met with there hefore. On the evening before 
the last sitting of the Yearly Meeting, another conversa- 
tion took place between myself, on the one part, and 
Charles Osborn and several other friends on the other. I 
again requested copies of the letters that he had received 
relating to me, for the purpose of calling the writers to an: 
explanation. But he persisted in declining, either to 
furnish me with copies, or with information of the names 
of the v^^riters, or the subjects on which they wrote. 

The doctrine of Justification was again brought into^ 
view, and his dissatisfaction v/ith me was more distinctly 
marked than before. After several other questions, he 
asked me, if I believed that Ju5^?^ca^io/i was the consequence 
oi Sanctijication ? I told him I did not. Then said he, 
"We are at points." I replied ''Be it so." He then ask- 
ed again how 1 held Justification ? I told him "By Faith.'^ 
"Therefore being Justified by Faith, v/e have peace with 
God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." "To him give all 
the Prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever 
believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." 

He declined to support his own opinion by arguments, 
but manifested a deep and settled dissatisfaction with 
mine. 

Attheeloseof the Yeaily Meeting, when the usual cer- 
tificates were brought in, for those who were in atten- 
dance from other Yearly Meetings, expressive of satisfac- 
tion with their company, &c., my name was passed over 
in silence: which was the highest censure they could pass 
upon me, short of some measure that would have claimed 
the official notice of my friends at bonie. But this would 
hjive i:equhxd invcstiga^on, which tficv did not intend. 

8ome pains were taken by individuals, to convey the 
idea that this negative censure was not passed upon me 



TiIE SOCIETY OP FRIEKDS. 83 

3.n consequence of any tiling I bad said or done iliere^ but 
on account of the Letters whicli had been written relating 
tome. But while it showed the extent of this vile sys- 
tem of defamation and detraction, and openly admitted, 
that the Yearly Meeting in its cfiicial conduct, was weak 
enough to be influenced by such proceedings — the facts 
which I have stated are sufficient to prove, that the dis^ 
satisfaction was ow account of the doctrines which 1 held, 
on points of fundamental importartce. 

Some time aflx^r my return home, I paid B. W. L. a 
visit, to expostulate with him on the unkind treatment 1 
had received from him. But he gave no satisfaction. On 
returning borne, I met with a letter from a friend in Cin- 
cinnati, mentioning the circulation of lotters, to the in- 
jury, of my reputation. I then wrote a short note to B. W, 
L. which I sent by B. Wright, an Elder of our Monthly 
Meeting, mentioning what I had heard, and calling upon 
him to retract what he had said to the injury of my repu- 
tation; or if he had any thing .against me, to Jbring it for- 
ward, for investigation before the Eiders or Overseers of 
the meeting to which I belonged. But he treated this 
^reasonable request with contempt — spoke of it to B? 
Wright, as a challenge^ and called him my Second, 

In a day or tw^ after, he called at my^ door, to propose 
to leave the subject to the Meeting for Sufferings, which 
he well knew was completely under his influence and 
direction. I told him that I admired, that, with his knowl- 
edge of the discipline, he should make such a proposition. 
He knew perfectly well, that the Meeting for Sufferings 
had nothing to do with treating with offenders: that he 
,had violated the order of the discipline, and was liable to 
he treated vrith accordingly. "O yes" was his answer, 
"come and have us all taken under dealing." I told him 
I did not wish to prosecute any one. But I wished, if 
they had any thing against me, they would bring it for- 
ward in the regular order of the Disciphnc, and give jrq 



84 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

an opportaniij of meeting it, in a tangible form. II 2 re- 
plied with great indignity, '^Does thee think I will come 
over here, to be tried by old John Loyd and James Kin- 
sey?"* I told him that I made no such proposition, I 
knew very well, that a complaint againj^t him must be tried 
before the Overseers of his own meeting. But charges 
against we, should be brought forward before the officers 
of the Society here. And 1 again pressed him to retract 
his charges, or sustain them by an open and orderly pro- 
ceeding. ''What I have done" said he ''I have done from 
concern^ and I shall retract nothing." 

This was near the end of the 11th month 1835. And I 
have noticed it here, that I might not break the connection 
of the parts of the story, relating to the Letters. 

Soon after my return from Indiana, John Hall, an El- 
der of Short Creek Monthly Meeting, called on me, to ex- 
press the wish he felt, that if I could be easy to keep si- 
lence, as to the ministry, I would do so. He professed to 
com.e on his own concern^ though it vv as evident then, and 
has been more so since, that he had been put up by others 
to do it. 

The Preparative, (or as it would be called in England, 
Monthly) Meeting of Ministers and Elders, occurred soon 
after. W. Planner, whose residence was at StiJl Water, 
but who had been on a long visit to his children in this 
neighbourhood, attended. And after sitting in the meet- 
ing a while, he proposed that we should proceed to busi- 
ness, remarking that he expected to attend tlje Quarterly 
Meeting of ministers and Elders next day ; as if to give us 
to understand, that he had nothing to say to us thcji^ but 
ihat we might hear from him the next day. The clerk, 
of course, opened the meeting, and proceeded to read and 
answer the Queries as usual. When he came to the 
Query relating to the ministry, he formed an answer, low^ 



*These are two Elders of Short Creek Monthly Meeting, 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 85 

er than usual. One of the Elders objected to this, John 
Hall supported the clerk, but after a free expressions of 
'Sentiment among the Eiders, the answer was corrected, so 
as to convey no complaint in regard to the ministry. — 
When this was done, V/. Planner rose, and discharged 
upon the ministry of Short Creek Monthly Meeting, such 
a volley, as I had seldom witnessed before. 

The evidence, I think is conclusive, that he expected 
the answer to be let down in that meeting, and that he 
intended to "hold up his fire" till next day, when the sub- 
ject would be opened in a superior meeting. The plan 
however was defeated, and he had to take us there, or not 
at all. 

When he had done, I rose, cind adverted to tlie pre- 
cepts of our blessed Lord, and the order prescribed. in the 
discipline, for treating with those against whom offence 
may have been taken; and expressed an earnest wish, 
that the friend would pursue this christian course, with 
those with whom- he was dissatisfied. 

The next day he was silent — no measures were taken 
in the meeting, and all the leading conservatives appear- 
ed to be disconcerted. 

I waited for W. F. to take the opportunity of a person- 
al interview, which I had invited, but in vain. And af- 
ter the Quarterly Meeting the next day, when I was just 
thinking of calling on him, I looked out of my window, and 
saw him preparing immediately to set out home. From 
that day to this, we have had no conversation on any reli- 
gious subject. 

A little previous to the next Quarterly Meeting, John 
Hall went over to Concord, another branch of the Month- 
ly Meeting, and stopped the Elders at the close of a 
meetings to inquire if they were not prepared to unite in 
the judgment, that I had lost my gift, and was only a Min- 
ister of the Le/^eri' They answered in the negative, and 
0,d vised him to go home and be quiet. 



SQ PROGEEDINGS A.ND PRINCIPLES OP 

In the Preparative meeting of Ministerand Eiders, in 
the 2nd month he made another effort to let down the 
answer relating to the ministrj; but the meeting over- 
ruled the proposition, and the answer went up clear. — - 
The next day, when the answers from the subordinate 
meeting were received in the Quarterly Meeting of 
Ministers and Elders, John ilall rose, and objected to the 
unswer from Short Creek, relating to the ministry. Wil- 
liam Wood had great sympathy with the friend ; and B. W. 
Ladd thought it was a suffering case^ and that something 
must be done. A committee v»^as accordingly appointed, 
and B. W« Ladd v/as one of that committee. 

When a Minister becomes- an offender, in ministry or 
general conduct, or otherwise, the discipline directs that 
he should first be treated with in private by the Elders. 
If not reclaimed, the case is to be reported to the Pre- 
parative Meeting of Ministers and Elders, vv^hich is to ex- 
tend further labour. If the cause of uneasiness should 
not be removed, the case is to be sent to the Quarterly 
Meeting of the same class, and then, if necessary, laid be- 
fore the Monthly Meeting for Discipline. 

Instead of pursuing this course, in which the. individual 
tias an opportunity of meeting, at every stage of the busi* 
iiess, a distinct charge, the unfair expedient was adopted, 
to get the Quarterly Meeting to act directly upon an in- 
dividual, who had never had the advantage of private in- 
vestigation, or even of meeting tli^e charge in any tangi- 
ble form. And not only so, but while the case is thrown 
into a superior meeting, without any thing to limit its ac- 
tion, the very persons who may be the secret prosecutors, 
and workers of the whole machinery, to crush an indi- 
viduaJ, may be made his judges, and carry on their own 
schemes of enmity, under the authority of superior meet- 
ings.^ 

It is novf well known, that these measures were intend- 
ed to bear directly upon me. And the unfairness of the 
proceeding,must be obvious to every unbiased minci. 



t'llE SOCIilTY OF FRiE^^Di?. ST 

Joshua Lyiicli said, on his visit to this neighbourhood,. 
a little before the Ycarlj Meeting in 1835, that neither I,. 
norseveral other ministers of Short Creek Monthly Meet 
ing, could be allowed to travel. And alluding to the 
prevailing opinion, that we were in unity with the Month- 
ly Meeting, he said that he should not be surprized if the 
Monthly Meeting, though tl>e largest in the Yearly Meet- 
ing, should be laid down, Benjamin W. Ladd passed 
severe cersure on the Monthly Meeting, for setting me at 
liberty to travel, and said, that it had let down its dignify 
in doing so. To lay down so large a meeting, was 
thought to be a dangerous experiment. How then, was 
it to be brought under cantrol? The way was easy. 

John Hall, proposed in the Quarterly Meetings (the 
day after the Quarterly Meeting of Ministers- and Elders,) 
the appointment of a committee, to assist the Monthly 
Meetings. I wished to know the object of this appoint- 
ment. The Monthly Meetings had nothing to do, that 
required the assistance of the Quarter, and it seemed 
strange to appoint a committee, without- any object. He 
was not allowed time to explain, if he had been prepared, 
to do so, before W. Wood objected to any such explana- 
tion. Jacob Branson and B. W. Ladd joined in the ob- 
jection, and the committee was appointed: and B. W» 
Ladd was one of them. This committee could attend the 
Monthly Meetings, and if any of the ministers had pro- 
posed a religious visit. they had the power to prevent it. 

An acknowledged minister of Short Creek Monthly 
Meeting had obtained a certificate to traveh^ a few months 
before, and being at a neighbouring Quarterly Meeting, 
she wished to ha,ve a meeting in a town just by. But 
B. W. Ladd and B. Hoyle, who were there, interfered^ 
and put a negative upon it^ and thus the meeting was 
prevented." 

By the appointment of the two committees, the one by 
the Quarterly Meeting, the other by the Quarterly Meet- 



88 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

ing of Ministers and Elders, an arrangement was made to 
cover the whole ground. B. W. Ladd and his associates, 
in the one committee, had complete control over the 
Monthly Meeting, in all its proceedings. No minister 
could be set at liberty to travel, nor any thing else he 
done by the meeting, without their consent. The other 
committee, having B. W. Ladd also in it, could, at its lei 
sure, take hold of the ministers, on any vague, indefinite 
charges they pleased, and at their own discretion, hand 
them over to the care of the Monthly Meeting — in which 
case, whatever might be the judgment of the Monthly 
Meeting, they would cease to hold the station of ministers, 
till re-acknowledged as at first; which requires the concur- 
rence of both the Preparative and Quarterly Meeting of 
Ministers and Elders. 

The Conservatives were now quite at ease. The bu- 
siness was all arranged, and could be finished at their 
leisure. 

In "The Friend," No. 22. vol. 9. there appeared an 
article, headed, "Standards of Doctrines," in which the 
writer endeavoured to prove that the Scriptures could not 
be the Standard of Doctrines — but that our own writings 
were to be regarded in that character. This was the 
open, avowed object of the article; and to this day, so 
far as I am informed, the sentiment stands uncorrected, 
as the sentiment of the conductors and supporters of that 
paper* "The Friend" is under the control of the leading 
members of the Society in Philadelphia. And we are 
very sure if the article was not in accordance with their 
views, it never would have been admitted into its pages. 
It is patronized by the most prominent members of the 
Society the world over. But have any of these, through 
its pages, ever corrected a sentiment thus openly advanced, 
and strenuously maintained in it? No, never. And I do 
say, that considering the manner in which that Periodical 
is conducted, its circulation, and high estimation in the 



THE bOCiJEXr OF FRIENDS. 80 

Society, the Society itself is answerable for articles which 
are inserted in it, and pass uncorrected there. If the 
Orthodox Friends made the other division of the Society 
answerable for the "Berean," published, as it was, without 
the name of the editor, how much more must thsy be an- 
swerable for the "Friend," conducted as it is, by the 
leading members of the Society in Philadelphia, and 
patronized by the ruling members of every Yearly Meet- 
ing in the world! 

The project had been ingeniously contrived for William 
Evans and Thomas Evans, to take into their hands the 
whole mass of the writings of Early Friends, enorm.ously 
voluminous as they are, and now insisted on in the Friend, 
and in various other ways,- as- the Standard of Doctrines 
for us. and by a monthly Periodical of 40 octavo pages, 
each, under the title of the Friends' Library, to give, in a 
few years, all that is desirable of those writings, for general 
reading, and vrith their intrinsic value enhanced. That 
is, to take into their hands the Faith of the Society, and 
its Standard of Doctrines, and abridge or modify, and 
remould the whole, to suit their views, or the views of the 
revising conimittee that the Meeting for SuiFerings there, 
appointed to assist them. And such has been the easy 
pliability of the Society, that some, if not all the Yearly 
Meetings, sanctioned the work before the first number 
was published; and the Monthly Meetings are converted 
into agents for it, to promote subscriptions and receive 
collections. "The Friend," I^o. 25. contains an. ar- 
ticle from a distant correspondent, representing that 
paper, and ihe proposed "Friends' Library," as "spiritual 
food,'' 'find proposing that poor farmers should "look over 
their farms, (no matter how small), and see if there is not 
some spot which they have not designed to cultivate, or 
from which they expect little benefit, and if they find 
such^ co^isider v/hether they cannot employ some of their 
leisure time in cultivating seme crop, from which thev 
M ' 



9d PROCEEDINGS ANJ) PRINClPtfiS Qf 

may realize a sufficient sum to be set apart for this desirat-- 
ble purpose." 

Whoever examines the course pursued by the Friend^ 
and the measures and sentiments which have been brought 
out by the Conservative members in the several Yearly 
Meetings, will perceive a concert of purpose and of ac- 
tion, altogether remarkable. 

While these public and private measures were going 
on, perceiving that my friends in many places were alien- 
ated from me, and that measures of an official character 
were determined on, to crush, or expel me from the Soci- 
ety, while everj means was taken to deprive me of an 
opportunity of a fair investigation of the grounds of these 
proceedings, I made use of the opportunity that was in 
my hands, in the closing numbers of the 5th volume of the 
Repository, to publish my own Vindication. This, I 
thought, was imperiously demanded from me, in justice to 
myself, to my friends, and to the cause of Truth. 

I thought it right to complain of the unfairness which 
bad been practiced towards me 5 and to declare my belief 
on those points of Doctrine, on which I had reason to 
believe there had been dissatisfaction, or misrepresenta- 
tion. This article gave additional dissatisfaction to the 
leading members of the Yearly Meeting. They were dis- 
pleased with my views of the authority of the Holy Scrip- 
tures-— with the doctrine of the Resurrection, and final 
Judgment, — of Faith in Christ, and Justification by 
Faith — and of Prayer, And the mild intimation which 
I gave of some imperfections, which are to be found in the 
writings of Early Friends, and the need of a discrimina- 
tion between these imperfections and what they said well, 
gave great offence. 

The attempts which have recently been made, officially 
to deny the opposition which was manifested to the above 
mentioned doctrines of Christianity, are very unworthy 
the character of upright men. And this departure from 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 91 

uprightness and candour, is the more remarkable, as the 
facts to which it relates, were, many of them, of public 
notoriety : and all of them were extensively known. 

In the mean time I concluded to return to England, not 
on a visit of ministry, but in the exercise of my own indi- 
vidual discretion ; and with no other privileges than those 
which I could rightfully claim without any special creden- 
tials. It is quite common for members of the Society of 
Friends, like other people, to go about their ow^n business, 
in their own way, depending on the common courtesy of 
mankind, for reasonable civilities wherever they go, with- 
out carrying in their pockets, formal certificates from their 
friends at home. They travel on business or for pleasure, 
where they please, and expect, like other people, to be 
treated with common civility where they go. Perfectly 
aware of these facts, I thought my common privileges 
were similar to those of others, and that I might enjoy 
them at my own discretion. 

Up to that time, my name had never been on i^'ae records 
of any meeting as an offender. The committees had 
never informed me that / was an object of tlieir concern. 
And six weeks, or thereabouts, elapsed, after their appoint- 
ment, before I left home, on this second visit to England. 
I visited a number of my friends, to take leave of them, 
and many came to take leave of me. And not a single 
intimation was given by these committees, that I was, in 
any sense of the word, under dealings or under their care 
or controul. 

Scarcely had I left the American shoresj when another 
clamour was raised, because I dared to leave home with- 
out a certificate. 

Such an insult offered to the rights of men, deserves a 
severe rebuke; and will not fail to be regarded in a proper 
point of view, by those who are not under the influence 
of an overbearing party. 



02! PROCEEDINGS AND miNCirLfiS OF 

On reaching England, I stiJl carried od mj Repository, 
\vhich had been resumed a few months heforc. Four 
numbers had been published in America, containing my 
Vindication, and several other articles. 

In the Vindication, published in the 19th and^ 20th 
numbers of the Repository, I made the following remarks: 

"I should think this declaration of the standard and 
test of doctrines sufficient, if I were not aware, thsit so7ne 
•will claim the writings of some of our own n^smbcrs, as 
something that more immediately concerns iis^ and there- 
fore more fit to be taken as the standard of our doctrines 
than the Scriptures, I hope the number is not large, who 
would entertain this idea-, but whether there are many or 
few, I shall dissent from it in decided terms. It is not 
my intention, directly, or indirectl}^, to countenance the 
idea, that the dispensation of grace, which was introduced 
by the Son of God, has >indergone any change; "or that 
any individuals whatever, have ever been able to set forth 
the doctrines to be beli<?%^ed, and the duties to be per- 
formed, so clearly as our Lord a,nd his apostles did — or 
that any authoritj' whatever is to be set up, in competi- 
tion with the authority on which the Holy Scriptures 
rest, — which is the authority of God. 

*^In regard to the writings of our ov/n members, I be- 
lieve they contain many excellent sentiments, examples, 
^and testimonies, in accordance with the Scriptures. But 
I believe they have some imperfections, which ought to 
be distinguished from what they said well. And this 
discrimination would be made, if, with minds enlightened 
-by the Holy Spirit, we brought them to the test of Holy 
Scripture, which is a principle most distinctly laid dowri 
by Robert Barclay. * * *' 

"I know that there is novi an injudicious turn, with somc^ 
(to make the best of it,) to press the indiscriminate com- 
mendation of those writings into a sort of test of sound 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIEND.?. #S 

principles. Such an indiscretion must necessarily involve 
those who desire to hold the simple and plain doctrines of 
the Scriptures, in the painful alternative, of being regard- 
ed as apostates, or of entering into an investigation of a 
very mortifying character.'' 

These mild exceptions to some parts of the writings o( 
.early Friends, were regarded as highly o^Sensive; and 
gave rise to many severe reflections on me. The investi- 
gation which I predicted has been begun, but when it 
will end, no one, I conceive, is able at present to decide. 
Much of a mortifying character has already been elicited; 
much will be brought to light in the subsequent part of 
this work; and much will still be left behind for future 
examination. 

But the touching of these things, has been like the ap- 
plication of Jtre to the Society. They should remember, 
however, that nothing short of /^rc will purge away the 
dross, the im, and the reprobate silver. And my prayer 
to the Lord is, that he would carry on his work of refine- 
ment, till these things are thoroughly destroyed. 

When I attended the Yearly Meeting in London, it 
-was found that t was, by the constitution of that meeting, 
an official member of it, on an equal footing with the re- 
presentatives theniselves — being a correspondent for Ohio 
Yearly Meeting, and as such entered upon their records. 
An attempt was made in the vieeting, to deny me the right 
of exercising the privileges of a minister, in the meetings 
for worship connected with the Yearly Meeting; but the 
subject was instantly rejected by the clerk of the Yearly 
Meeting. Thus was this matter disposed of, after it had 
-been rung through the United States and Great Britain. 

I pass over the various vexatious proceedings that were 
taken to harrass and discourage me in the preaching of 
the Gospel, even while the persons thus engaged, were 
.compelled to confess the doctrines were Found, And ye.t 



9-4 PROCEEDINGS A?^U PRIX'CIPLES OF 

it was perfectly evident that the doctrines were the 
grounds of dissatisfaction. 

At the same time, sentiments identical with those which 
characterized the doctrines of Elias Hicks, were promul- 
gated with freedom, from the gallery and the press. 

While in London, a friend purchased for me, at the 
office of the Yearly Meeting, in Devonshire Meeting 
House, a Tract, puhlished by George Jones and others, of 
a Tract Association. The following is an advertisement, 
relating to this Tract Association : 

"Manchester and Stockport Tract Depository; For the 
sale of Cheap Tracts, and other Publications: some ex- 
planatory of. And all in unison with the Principles of 
Christianity as held by the Society of Friends. 

"The object I have in view is, not only to aabrd a 
greater facility for obtaining a variety of suitable Tracts 
for general distribution, tending to promote an increase 
of piety and virtue, but also to furnish Friends with an 
opportunity of supplying their own and Monthly Meet- 
ings' Libraries with tracts and books published by our 
Society; believing there is, at the present day, not only a 
wide field open for the distribution of Tracts generally, 
but that there exists a great desire in the minds of many 
to receive correct information relative to the fundamental 
doctrines of Friends; knowing they are much misrepre- 
sented by some in the present day. 

"The publications of this Depository may be had on 
application to mc; John Harrison, Printer, Manchester; 
or Isaac Patching, 86 Houndsditch, London. Ten per 
cent, discount upon the purchase of twenty shillings' 
worth and upwards at one time. Also considerable allow- 
ance to the Trade. 

"N. B. When the discount to retailers is taken off the 
tracts, issued by this Depository, the price is not sufficient 
to pay the expensep and to allow of a suitable gratuitous 



T21E SOCIETY OF FKiElNDS* 95 

distsibution. A few friends have kindly subscribed to* 

wards promoting so desirable an object; but there are 

still many calls for supplies of this kind, in quarters where 

it is likely they might be useful. If such friends as are of 

ability, and who have not the opportunity of disposing of 

Tracts, incline to assist in promoting their circulation, 

donations or subscriptions from them will • be carefully 

applied. 

^, , , iQ-^ GEORGE JONES." 

btockport, Iboo. 

This advertisement directly implicates the whole Socie- 
ty by freely using its name, and declaring the Tracts, ex- 
planatory of, or in unison with the principles of Chris- 
tianity, a^ held by the Society of Friends — and as giving 
''''correct information relative to the Fundamental doctrines 
of Friends.'''' The object too, is declared to be, not only 
to circulate Tracts, thus characterized, — but to enable 
Friends to furnish their own^ and Meetings' Libraries, 
with tracts and books Published by our Society." And 
the Society, with these pretensions publicly advertised, 
and the Tracts circulated accordingly — suffers this re- 
sponsibility, quietly to rest upon it, not only not disclaim- 
ing them, — but by suffering them to be Deposited for 
sale or distribution at its office, in the Yearly Meeting 
house. 

The Tract to which I have alluded, cis having procured 
through a friend, from Isaac Patching, a clerk in William 
Manley's office in Devonshire Meeting House, is called: 
"An Incitation to Professors seriously to consider, whe- 
ther they or we fail in the true acknowledgment and 
owning of the Christ which died at Jerusalem. By Isaac 
Pennington." 

In that Incitation the writer makes the following decla- 
rations : 

"First, that wc do really in our hearts own that Christy 
who came in the fulness of time, in that prepared body, 



96 FIlOCEIiDl.NCiS A>D rKl.NtirLEti OF 

to do the Father's will, (his coming into the world, doc- 
trines, miracles, sufFerings, death, resurrection, &c.), in 
plainness and simplicity of heart, according as it is ex- 
pressed in the letter of the Scriptures. 

'•Secondly, that we own no other Christ than that; nor 
hold forth no other thing for Christ, hut him w^ho then 
appeared, and was made manifest in flesh." P.. 2. 

The reader is requested to notice here, that it is not the 
7/ia7i that walked about the streets of Jesusalem, as Elias 
Hicks used to say — it it not the outward person that suf- 
fered, as William Penn said, that is acknowledged by 
Isaac Pennington, as the Christ. It is something that 
was in him. It should also be noticed that I. P. is posi- 
tive, "that we 0W71 710 other Christ thaji that, 7107' hold forth 
no other thing for Christ," &c. 

To put the subject beyond all doubt, I. Pennington 
goes on to say: 

^^j\^ow the Scriptures do expressly distinguish between Christ 
and the gar7nent zvhich he wore : between him that came^ and 
the body iri which he came', between the substance which was 
vailed, and the vail which vailed it, 'Lo ! I come ; a body 
hast thou prepared me.' There is plainly Ae, and the body 
in zvhich he came. There was the outwa7'd vessel arid the in- 
zvai'd life. This we certainly know, a7id can 7iever call the 
bodily ga7'me7it Christ, but that which appeared and dwelt in 
the body. Now if ye indeed know the Christ of God, tell us 
plainly what that is which appeared in the body? Whe- 
ther that w^as not the Christ before it took up the body, 
after it took up the body, and forever?" p. 4. 

This very passage w^as one of the earliest stslected from 
the writings of Primitive Friends, in support of the doc- 
trines of Elias Hicks. It is found in the Berean vol. 2, p* 
278, under date 3 mo. 7, 1826, and italicised nearly as 
George Jones has done it. The difference is, that G. J» 
has italicised 5i lines more than the Berean did. He 



THE SOCIETY OF FUIEr^'DS. 97 

makes the reference also, to I. Pennington vol. 3, p. 61, 
which is not done in the Tract. 

Every body who knows any thing of the doctrines of 
Elias Hicks, knows perfectly well, that this notion of the 
character of Christ, lay at the very foundation of them. — 
It is not the question that I intend to investigate in this 
place, whether the quotation before us, conveys the real 
sentiments of Isaac Pennington or not. But that it con- 
veys those of Elias Hicks not one of his friends and advo- 
cates will deny. And that George and Ann Jones, should 
select this passage, in a cheap Tract — and not only so, 
but have it printed in Italics, as correct information 
relative to the Fundamental doctrines of Friends, could 
not have happened from mere inadvertance. 

And at a time when Isaac Crewdson was undergoing 
the most severe course of censure by the Society, both in 
England and America, for a work refuting the doctrines 
of Elias Hicks, not only did this Tract pass currently in 
the Society, but received all the evidences of approval, 
that the nature of the case would admit, short of the di- 
rect official action of meetings. 

It is of some importance too, to remember, that Ann 
and George Jones were among those of the English Con- 
servatives who were the most decidedly hostile to me. — 
They were among the leaders of the opposition to me — • 
and of the intimate friends and correspondents to whom 
Thomas Evans refers in his letter to B. W. Ladd, which 
was copied and widely spread in the western country, and 
reviewed in the Repository, vol. 5, p. 398 to 412. 

A number of other recent publications were put into 
active circulation, some letting down the conclusive au- 
thority of the Holy Scriptures — others taking that mysti- 
cal view of the character of Christ, of his body and blood, 
which formed so prominent apart of what was called 
Hicksism. Among these were T. Thompson's Letter, 
Hancock's Defence, Truth Vindicated, several ofGewge 
N ■ 



m 



PROCEEDINGIS AND PRINCIPLES <5F 



Jones' Tracts, one by George Richardson, a Pamphlet hj 
Samuel Rundle, &c. &c. 

In the mean time the Yearly Meeting's Committee,> 
were carrying on their operations against Isaac Crewd- 
son, W. Boulton and some other friends, who were known 
to hold the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, Jus- 
tification by Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. 

It is an important fact, that Joseph John Gurney, and 
several members of that committee, who had been under- 
stood to hold those doctrines as fully as Isaac C re wdson 
himself did, lent themselves to the views of the high con- 
servatives, to crush a man who would not truckle, and 
make terms at the expense of a sacrifice of the most impor- 
tant principles. 

The Beacon, being in its most prominent character, a 
refutation of the acknowledged doctrines of E. H. the sup- 
pression, or professed suppression of the work, which was. 
what the committee required, must of necessity be under- 
stood to be a recantation, as to the most obvious character 
6f the work. For his refusing to do this, the committee 
determined to silence I. Ci^'ewdson's ministry, at the same 
time declaring that they had passed no judgment on his 
'ministry. 

In a Society, acknowledging the high character of the 
ministry, as does the Society of Friends, and whife Isaac 
Crewdson's ministry stood recognized as being under di- 
rine influence — to suppress that ministry, because he 
could not be induced to compromise the very first princi- 
ples of the Gospel, to please those, who from the facts air 
ready disclosed, were radically unsound in those doctrines, 
is not only cause of astonishment but of deep regret. 

In the progress of the deaUngs of the committee with 
Isaac Crewdson, in which those who had been prominent 
for holding Evangelical doctrines, were particularly care- 
ful to have it understood that that committee were fully 
united^ some facts of a striking character, were brought 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 9^ 

©ut. I shall mention but one, in addition to those already 
noticed. 

Isaac Crewdson, had made some remarks on Eiias 
Hicks''s doctrine of the Inward Light, to which he applied 
the terms, ^Hhis delusive notion." In the second Edition 
of the work he made a Note, in which he says: "We de= 
clare the Hicksite theory of the inward light, to be a de- 
lusive notion: but we believe and maintian the Scripture 
doctrine of the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, 
both in opening the heart, and in enlightening the under- 
standing. See Acts xxi, 14 and 2 Tim. ii 7." 

The committee object to the first remarks in the Beacon, 
and say: "The note given (in the 2nd edition) as an ex- 
planation of this passage, is liable to precisely the samQ 
objection, as the passage itself," 

The Note, it will be observed, acknowledges a full be*, 
lief in the Scripture doctrine of the immediate operation of 
the Holy Spirit, both in opening the heart, and in enligh- 
tening the understanding'— and restricts the objection em 
Hrely to the Hicksite theory of the inward light. It is then 
beyond all contradiction, in defence of the Hicksite iheory 
of the inward light,, that the committee declared in the fol- 
lowing decided language. "While the author of the Bea^ 
con here repeats his acknowledgment of the immediate 
operations of the Spirit, he denounces the [Hicksite] doc- 
trine of the inward light, as the theory of an infidel. — 
JS'ow we regard the [Hicksite] doctrine of the Hnward light'' 
as absolutely identical with the doctrine of the Spirit* The 
heresy of Elias Hicks, consisted not in holding, or pre- 
tending to hold this precious part of divine truth, but in 
denying other parts of the great plan of redemption^"— 
l^ee defence of the Beacon po 37,380 

It has already been noticed that the committee, and €S« 
pecially those members of it, who were regarded as hold- 
ing Evangelical doctrines, were careful to propagate the 
idea that they were united in their acts ; and as they were npt 



100 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

only performed under the authority of the Yearly Meeting, 
hut have been approved by that body since they were trans- 
acted, they must be regarded as the acts of the Society. 
In the above quotation, I have put in the Word Hicksite^ 
in brackets, because simple justice to Isaax Crewdson de- 
mands that it should be done. The committee knew, for 
they had it before their eyes, that Isaac Crewdson's ob- 
jection was to the Hicksite theory^ and to this alone; and 
that he expressly distinguished it from the Scripture doC' 
trine of the Holy Spirit. They have come forward, not 
only with a direct vindication of that theory, thus distin- 
guished from the Scripture doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 
but in defence of Elias Hicks, so far as his doctrine of the 
inward light is concerned. And they declare his theory 
of the inward light j to be '•^absolutely identical with the doc-^ 
trine of the Spirit*'''' 

They do indeed object, or leave an objection to be in- 
ferred, against E. H. fov'^denying other parts of the great 
plan of redemption." But this places his error on nega- 
tive^ and not on positive ground. It recognizes all that he 
asserted in reference to the inward light. If then E. H. had 
gone, no further than the affirmative part of his doctrines, 
he would have met the cordial concurrence of the com- 
mittee. 

Now the very essence of the error of E. H consisted in 
his doctrine of the Inward Lights because he held it to be, 
absolutely Christ. If this be granted, as to all the practi- 
cal effects of the unsoundness, the denial of Jesus of Nazar- 
eth to be the Christ, need not have been made. The sum 
and substance ofthe heresy was stated in the doctrine of 
E. H. of the inward light: and its effects, in all probability, 
would have been more extensive if the negative part of 
the system, had not been formally expressed. 

But such is the nature of the case, that it is utterly im- 
posible to admit E. Hieks's theory of the inward light, (for 
that is the matter in hand) without a virtual denial ofes-^ 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 101 

sential "parts of the great plan of redemption." I.ct the 
reader take those parts of the sermons of E. H. in which 
he brings out his theory of the inward Hght, in the most 
exphcit terms, both in his positive and negative assertions; 
let him take notice how he makes it out to be Christy in 
the full sense of the term — and how he denies the man 
'•that walked about the streets of Jerusalem," to be the 
Christ — let him then strike out of E. H's language, every 
plain and literal denial o( the Lord Jesus, and ask himself 
if E. H's. theory of the inward light as he actually held it, is 
ch5,nged? No man of common sense, can, for a moment, 
suppose that any change whatever,.in the theory, as iizvas 
held by him, would be made, by the omission, in words, 
of the denial of Jesus as the Christ. It was what was in- 
tended by the theory of the inward light — it was the point 
to which that theory was naturally carried out. And the 
plain, and formal defence of E. H. which is made by the 
committee, is a virtual admission of his whole error, in re- 
gard to the character of Christ and the means of Redemp- 
tion. 

We cannot excuse the committee on the plea of inadr 
vertance on their part, or lack of ability. They had had 
the subject long under consideration: and some at least, 
of their number, Vv ere men by no means under mediocrity, 
in their talents or acquirements. 

It vvdll be seen however, in the progress of this work, 
that the defence which has been set up for the whole of 
the writings of Early Friends, in which the committee 
are involved, cannot be confined to the mere affirmative 
parts of the doctrines of E. H. They make as plain a 
denial of Jesus of Nazareth, and of the efficacy of his blood, 
asE. H. ever did. While these thing were going on, 
nearly thirty friends in England, including some of the 
most estimable ministers there, who unflinchingly preach- 
ed the doctrine of Faith in our Eord Jesus Christ, and 
Justification by Faith — were more or less annoyed, and 
subjected to difficulty by the Conservatives. 



102 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

The most common mode of procedure was, at least it 
was so in my case, to avoid discussions of doctrines; and 
to rest the objection to the ministry of the person, on the 
pretended lack of life* As the preaching of the Apostles, 
was in that day, to some, the sovour of death unto death — 
as Paul expressl}^ declared that the time would come, when 
they would not endure sound doctrine — so it was at the 
time of which I am speaking. It was acknowledged to be 
sound doctrine, but it could not be borne, and every means 
almost that was possible, were resorted to, in order to 

STOP IT. 

After I had spoken at some length on Faith in our 
Lord Jesus Christ, at a large meeting at Newington, on a 
first day morning, an individual in the youth's gallery 
made a vehement objection — that they had heard much 
of an outward Christ — but nothing of the Christ within, 
the Hope of glory. Some time after this, the meeting 
was broken up in a disorderly manner, by W. Allen, who, 
with Barnard Dickenson, William Richardson and several 
other prominent members, rudely stopped me as I was 
coming down out of the gallery, and upbraided me with 
imposition, ''great darkness j"* &lc, &c. in the face of a large 
company of strangers; though I requested if they had any 
thing to say to me, they would take another opportunity, 
when I could have bome of my friends with me. But this 
reasonable privilege was refused. In all my intercourse 
with the world, I never met with such treatment before. 

It was then and there, that W. Allen said that he was 
informed that my friends were very uneasy with me at 
home, and that a committee of the Quarterly Meeting 
was appointed to have the care of the Monthly Meeting of 
which I was a member; but he would not inform me, from 
whom he received that information. 

That he had been informed from America, that the 
committee of Short Creek Quarterly Meeting, was ap* 
pointed on my account, rests on his testimoEy: and I have 



tHE SOCIETY OF l-T^l£Ni)S, lOS 

lio doubt it was true. But when I called for the reasons 
for appointing the committee, in the meeting itself, the 
author, and advocates of the measure steadfastly refused to 
give any reasons at all. But it was now brought to bear 
upon me in a foreign country, plainly for preaching the 
only hope of salvation. 

Two official deputations waited upon me in London^ 
during the Yearly Meeting; the first of which grew out of 
the meeting of which I have just spoken. But in both 
Cases they were driven to confess that the doctrines 1 
preached were sound. Besides these, Eight of the most 
prominent Ministers and Elders, after the Yearly Meet- 
ing, called upon me to discourage me from preaching, while 
they all, on being questioned, acknowledged that my doc- 
trines were sound; and on being pressed by me on that 
point, they acknowledged 1 had not delivered a sentence 
against which an objection could be made. The pre- 
vailing theme of my ministry, like that of the Apostle 
Paul, was repentance toward God, and Faith toward our 
Lord Jesus Christ, But it was unpalatable, and every 
means in their power was taken to discourage and stop me* 

The Apostle rejoiced that Christ was preached, wheth- 
er sincerely or not. But different, far different were the 
feelings of those that waited on me, though not one of 
them called in question my sincerity, or the soundness of 
my ministry. 

After the Yearly Meeting in London, I passed through 
Manchester, where I preached Christ unto them, and re- 
mission of sins through faith in his name. 

Here too it was thought to be intolerable, and thej 
held a consultation (as I was informed,) to stop my preach- 
ing. But their counsel was thrown into confusion, and 
the plan failed. 

At Kendal the clerk of the Quarterly Meeting — Sam- 
uel Marshall, paid me a visit, requesting me to be silent 
as a minister. He made a direct objection to my preach- 



104 PROCEEDINGS AND PltiNClFLES Ot 

iiig Faith in Christ* In the conversation, he unliesitate- 
ingly declared his approval of Penn's Sandy Foundation 
Shaken. 

Thus it was, that I was prosecuted through the whole 
length of the Society, from Indiana in the west, to London 
in the east. Private detraction, and defamatory letters, 
were succeeded hy intrigue and management, to hring 
the power of the Society to bear upon me, in a way wholly 
incompatible with the prescriptions of the Discipline. — 
And the ruling Ministers and Elders of the Society, gave 
themselves up to the impulse of their feelings, in the pros- 
ecution of measures, which all the rules of common de- 
cency forbid. — And this determined hostility, was plainly 
because I held, and uncompromisingly preached, the con- 
clusive authority of the Holy Scriptures, and according to 
their clear testimon^^, I endeavoured to call my hearers to 
a deep consideration of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, 
and testified that God commandeth all every where to re- 
pent, because he both appointed a day in which he will 
Judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom .he 
hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all 
men, in that he hath raised him from the dead — that we 
ought to repent and turn to God, and do works meet for re- 
pentance, laying hold of the offers of eternal life through 
Jesus Christ our Lord — To him give all the Prophets wit- 
ness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him, 
shall receive remission of sins. — The Justification of the 
transgressor, however penitent he may be, is only through 
Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who died a sacrifice for 
our sins. The condemnation for the sins that are past, 
must be removed by the efficacy of that one offering, 
applied to our hearts by Faith, which Faith is one of the 
fruits of the Spirit. In intimate connection with these 
views, I insisted on the duty of Prayer, as that duty is 
clearly set forth in the Holy Scriptures. — Here was the 
ground of offence, and the more clearly I explained my- 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 105 

self, the more determined and violent the persecution be- 
came. 

My Vindication was printed in the 1st month, 1836, 
bat not generally distributed to subscribers till the 2nd 
mo. This was like adding fuel to the fire. The leading 
members here, who had been dissatisfied with the doc- 
trines I maintained, were now more dissatisfied — because 
they saw them so clearly stated, and so fully sustained. 

The Vindication Reviewed, was published on the 15th 
of 5th month following. 

When the Society had been prepared for it, hy private 
management, the Meeting for Sufferings of Ohio took up 
the case, thus entirely inverting the order prescribed in the 
Discipline, which directs, that individuals who give occa- 
sion for uneasiness, should be first treated with in private 
— that the Overseers should then take charge of the case, 
extending further care, in private. If this should prove 
inefTectual, report is to be made to the Preparative Meet- 
ing. This latter meeting is to appoint a committee to en- 
deavour to convince the offender of the impropriety of 
his conduct. It being understood in all cases, that the 
offence charged upon the individual, should be disowna- 
ble by the Discipline. There must be the violation of a 
law — for where no Law is there is no transgression. 

It is by such a process as I have discribed, that those 
who transgress the Rules of the Discipline, and violate 
the terms of membership, are to be disowned. 

But in order to secure the rights of individuals, there is 
the privilege oi appeal from the judgment of the Monthly, 
to the Quarterly Meeting — and from this to the Yearly 
Meeting. And in order to maintain that safeguard to the 
rights of members, the superior meetings must keep clear 
of any action in the case, so as not to have prejudged it, 
while in the meeting below. 

But in all these cases, the preliminary steps of private 
dealing with m.e, as the Discipline directs^ were wholly 
O 



106 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

disregarded — a system of defamation and detraction was 
let loose upon me, from one end of the Society to the oth- 
er — the rules of common civility as well as of the Disci- 
pline, were trampled under foot, even in the place for the 
worship of God. Meetings both for Discipline, and those 
of Ministers and Elders, stooped to the most unworthy 
artifices of intrigue and duplicity, to effect unworthy ob- 
jects* And now when the way was fully prepared for it, 
the Meeting for Sufferings — which like an executive 
branch of government, represented the Yearly M3eting, 
determined to pass a censure upon me, that should not 
only result in my disownment by the Monthly Meeting— 
but destroy my religious character, throughout the whole 
Society. 



CHAPTER III 



It was in the beginning of the 9th month, that the Meet- 
ing for Sufferings entered upon the measure of issuing a 
document against me. The whole machinery which had 
been contrived to crush me, had failed to execute the in^ 
tended purpose, as soon as had been desired. And though 
I was in a foreign country, 1 still preached the same doc- 
trines for which I had been proscribed — and all the diffi? 
culties which had been thrown in the way by open ene- 
mies, and false friends — -all the complaints about the lack 
oflife, and the burden of the doctrines I preached — and 
the correspondence between the conservatives in thii 
country and that— still I had the privilege of attending 
meetings as they came in course— and of speaking in them 
when I believed myself called to do so, by the Head of the 
church. This was too much to be borne, and the Meet- 
ing for Sufferings arose, in all its might, to accomplish 
the work at one blow— and that leveled against me in my 
absence. 

It was at the commencement of the Yearly Meeting, 
when all the Ministers, as well as the members of the 
Meeting for Sufferings, had an opportunity of attending. 
Influential persons were also here from the Yearly Meet? 
ingsof New England, Philadelphia, N. Carolina, and In^ 
diana. Among these were William Evans, the Senior 
Editor of the Friends' Library, Thomas Kite, and Jere- 
miah Hubbard. 

The Meeting for Sufferings, led on by B. W. Ladd, B. 
Hoyle, &:c. &c., first objected to my publishing the Vin- 
dication^ without the consent of that Meeting. But it was 
replied that the article alluded to, was published before 



108 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

I leXt this country for England. Tliis suggestion, if I am 
rightly informed, was made by J. Hubbard. It was also 
mentioned, that in regard to the matter of publishing^ the 
meeting itself had set me at liberty, and had never recal- 
led that liberty. 

This of course presented an obstacle to the plan of pro- 
cedure. The Vindication Reviewed was then taken up, 
and a number of charges were founded on it: some affect- 
ing my moral character, some addressed to the prejudices 
already excited against me, but in relation to which there 
was no rule of discipline at all — and some having refer- 
ence to the discipline, in regard to publications, which 
they, themselves, in their official character, and which all 
the leading members in their individual capacities, had 
virtually laid aside. The meeting was distinctly informed 
at the time, that the statements which it made could not 
be sustained. But they were determined to go on. It 
was carried through the Meeting for Sufferings, and read 
and adopted in the Yearly Meeting. John Howard, an 
acknowledged minister, who had personal knowledge of 
some of the facts, to which the document related, objected 
to it in the meeting. This was made a grave offence against 
him, by B. W. Ladd, in a committee of the Yearly Meet- 
ing of ministers and elders, and brought forward to prove 
that John Howard stood opposed to the body of Society. 
Thus even the private rights of members, to express their 
sentiments on subjects of importance, when brought be- 
fore meetings, were violated or trampled under foot, the 
simple exercise of these rights being made the ground of 
censure, in a committee of ministers and elders. 

I ask. Where, in civil or religious society, can such an 
example of high-handed misrule be found ? 

Thus while I was absent in a foreign country — without 
the least notice of an intended prosecution against me, 
was this document carried through the highest meetings 
of the Society here, although testimony which would have 



THE SOCIETY OF FftlENDS. . 109 

been taken in any court of Law, in any country, was of- 
fered at the time, in opposition to some of the most mate- 
rial statements which that document contained. 

Tlie order prescribed in the Discipline for treating 
with OiFenders was completely inverted. Instead of pri- 
vate labour, and fair investigation before the overseers, in 
which the accused pa.rty might have an opportunity of 
meeting his accusers to the face — the Yearly Meeting 
itself passes judgment against him— and sends that judg- 
ment down to the Monthly Meeting for execution. Thus 
every rule of right was violated, in the first place — rules 
which even Pagan Rome considered most sacred— and 
eYQTj hope was cut off, of either justice by the Monthly 
Meeting, or justice by an appeal to the Quarterly or 
Yearly Meeting. 

And not only so: the document, directly alFecting my 
moral character, in charging me with making statements 
^'disingenuous and untrue," was directed to be sent — not 
only to Short Creek Monthly Meeting, for its action in 
my disownment — simple execution of me would not do. — 
In days of darkness and barbarism, a -spirit of vengeance 
was sometimes indulged, which could not be satisfied with 
simply putting a man to death. His mutilated mortal 
remains must be exhibited m the most public manner pos- 
sible. Whether it was a shoot from the sa,me stock or 
not, I leave; but the-Meeting for Sufferings, at B. W. 
Ladd's recommendation, determined to send the docu- 
ment against me, to all the other meetings for Sufferings— 
not for investigation, but for advertisement and record. — 
The usage of the Society, in the correspondence of those 
bodies, would make what passed between them matters of 
record— and also bring it before the respective Yearly 
Meetings — not, as already observed, for inquiry — but as 
matters settled in the wisdom and authority of Truth. 

It is to the credit of the Society in other places, and I 
gladly avail myse]f of the opportunity to state the fact, 



110 PR6CE£DINGS A.1AD PRINCIPI^ES OF 

that in some, at least, of the meetings for suiferings, I hear 
it was received with evidences of disapprobation. Mj 
information may be defective; but I understand that the 
meeting for Sufferings of Indiana, merely minuted that a 
<locument was received — without stating its object. The 
meeting for Sufferings of Virginia, received it with de- 
cided disapprobation* The meeting in New York neither 
took it upon record, nor made any minute of its recep- 
tion, and let it fall d^ad in the hands of the clerk. Up to 
the last accounts from London, it had not made its ap- 
pearance in the meeting for Sufferings there. From 
Philadelphia, New England, Baltimore, North Carolina, 
and Ireland, I have not heard. In the first-mentioned 
place, I have no doubt it was cordially received. 

YvHien it had passed the Yearly Meeting here, my chil- 
dren applied to Benjamin Hoyle, Clerk of the Meeting 
for Sufferings, and to B. W. Ladd, Clerk of the Yearly 
Meeting, for atopy of it; to give me information of what 
had passed against me, and to enable them to defend my 
reputation, in my absence ; but they were coldly, and con- 
temptuously refused. After I returned home, I made a 
written demand on the meeting itself, but it was totally 
disregarded, and neither was the document furnished, nor 
any message sent by that body. Secure in the possession 
of power, they sat at their ease, and looked vyith contempt 
on the objeet of their persecution. • 

It may not be improper here to remark, that some time 
after the Yearly Meeting in London, (the committees, 
and other Conservatives in this country, having held no 
communication with me), apprehending that I might pos- 
sibly remain in England till the Spring — I wished to show 
all reasonable respect to the constituted authorities of the 
Society there. When I went over, it was with some ex- 
pectation that I might return in the 7th or 8th month. 
The common privileges, and common responsibilities in 
the Society, which attach to a member known to be such, 



THE SOCIETY OF FKIENDS* ill 

was all that I expected, and all iiiat was necessary for the 
short time, to which I supposed my visit might possibly be 
contracted. In addition to this, the appointment I held 
as a Correspondent, gave me privileges in the Yearly 
Meeting, on an equal footing with the Representatives 
themselves. But now, vdien it seemed not unlikelj^, that 
I should remain there some time longer, I determined to 
request a Certificate for a temporary residence. 

I well knew that according to the discipline, this request 
would bring objections hereto a point — that if the dissa- 
tisfied members, were disposed to maintain their dissatis- 
faction, they must reduce it to a distinct form, and send 
the complaint against me, to the meeting where I was 
residing — that I might be treated with — the monthly 
meeting Aere retaining the power of decision in the case. 

The request for a certificate was accordingly made, but 
it did not reach the friends here, till after the Yearly 
Meeting. A committee was accordingly appointed to 
make the necessary inquiry, whether one could be grant- 
ed or not* 

Before I had heard from America, as to the proceedings 
that were going on, I became impressed with the necessi- 
ty of returning home* I had maintained the ground suc- 
cessfully there; and the opposition stood at bay. I be- 
lieved the time had come, for me, as soon as possible, to 
return home, and meet the preparations which, I was per- 
suaded, were making for a formidable attack upon me 
here. This impression rested with increasing weight 
upon me; till at length I formed the determination to 
return, just about the time that the Meeting for Sufferings 
was concocting its measures against me. 

I mention the latter fact, merely as a singular coinci- 
dence of circumstances. 

It appears to have been the intention of my enemies, 
to disown me Aere, before I returned, if not before I should 
receive any official notice of the charges brought against 



112 PUOCEiiDlJN'CiS AND TRrXCIPLES OF 

me. But from the application for a certificate, and the 
novelty of the course pursued by the Meeting for Suffer- 
ings, some doubts had arisen as to the mode to be adopted, 
and thus some delay took place. The document had come 
down to the Preparative Meeting, and there I found it, 
when I reached home in the llth month. 

It is proper also to remark, that every meeting, both of 
ordinary members and of Ministers and Elders, from the 
Yearly, down to the Monthly Meeting, had appointed 
Committees to assist the Meetings below.. The whole 
powers of the Society were mustered and arranged for the 
most decisive and efficient action. These combined com- 
mittees attended even the Preparative Meeting, and di- 
rected the Overseers what to do. B. Yi, Ladd was put 
on the committee of every meeting of which he was a 
member. He was the nucleus upon which they were all 
formed — he v/as the moving power, which gave action to 
the whole system. In Short Creek Monthly Meeting, he 
scouted the idea o{ mvestigation of the charges brought 
by the Meeting for Sufferings. The doings of that body, 
were not then to be called in question. 

But when I returned home, they knew that I would in- 
sist upon investigation, and that they could not, now that 
I was on the spot and demanded a hearing, carry on even 
the forms of disov/nment, without it. They knew that 
their document, was hollow in its pretensions; that it could 
not stand the test; and that accumulated disgrace must 
fall upon its authors; not only for the palpable mis-state- 
ments which it contained — but for the conviction of the 
authors of it, of being guilty of those very things which, 
to cast a censure upon me, they had pronounced a re- 
proach to the Society. 

B. W. Ladd and his associates, under the authority^ 
some or other of them, of the Yearly, Quarterly, and 
Monthly Meeting, attended the Preparative Meeting in 
the 12th month, the first which occurred after my return. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 113 

Ehit)ch Harris, one of the Overseers, had made out a 
compluint, founded on the document, which, howcTer, he 
had not presented to me, nor did I know that such a thing- 
was to be offered to the Preparative Meeting. Thisj B. 
W, Ladd and the Committees, totally rejected. The 
document was declared not to be a charge, nor so intended 
by the Meeting for Sufferings; and the Paper prepared* 
by E*' H., embracing the charges contained in it, was 
thrown out. And B, W. L. went to the Clerk's Table, 
and drew up a new charge — merely for publishing the 
Vindication Reviewed, without the consent of the Meet- 
ing' for Sufferings, asserting that it had caused disunity 
and discordv 

This was to be no act of the Meeting then. No — it 
was to be understood as originating, some time after, with 
the Overseers, and as having been kept on that ground of 
private dealing which the Discipline directs, though 
transacted in the face of the Preparative Meeting; and 
the authority of the Committees was held over the Over- 
seers, to carry this contemptible piece of mummery into 
effect. 

They had determined that they would never meet m_e 
ia a fair investigation of the things contained in that 
extraordinary document; — and thus, after all the combi- 
nations to get it up, and all the formidable display of it 
before the world, they now threw it away with their 
own hands, rather than face me with it. 

After this exhibition of unfair dealings, as I had been 
publicly accused, condemned, and held up to the world, 
both as to my religious and moral character, I determined 
to meet the charges against me, in print, as the only mode 
oi defence now left me. I accordingly published the 
"Refutation." As soon as it was out, B. W. Ladd called 
on me, to get one of them, which I readily gave him. I 
also presented copies to several other persons concerned, 
and sent one to each of the Meetings for Sufferings. I 



114 FROCEEDINGS .\ND PRINCirLES Ot 

likewise sent one to Benjamin Hoyle, Clerk of the Meet- 
ing for Sufferings, to be preserved among its Papers- 
accompanying the Pamphlet with a note, explaining the 
object I had in view, and telling him, that I wished the 
Meeting to know, that if it was not satisfied with the 
statements I had made, I was willing t& meet, either a 
committee of that body, or the whole of it together, in a 
free, open, and friendly discussion of the subject. In like 
manner, I also wisTied the individuals whose names I had 
used, to know, that if they thought I had not done them 
justice, i was willing to meet any, or all of them, in setting 
the matter right. I wished to maintain nothing but the 
truth, and I invited investigation, and earnestly wished 
that good feeling might be preserved. 

The Clerk happening not to attend, the letter was pre- 
sented to the meeting. Dr. Parker, John Street, and 
David Fawcett, were directed to examine it; and they 
took B. W. Ladd along with them. On their return, 
they informed the Meeting, that the letter did not require 
its notice.* Thus both the Meeting itself, and the indi- 



*A curious circumstance oocurretl at this Meeting. While the 
four persons named were out, examining my letter to the Glerk, W. 
Wood opened a "concern,'' that he had. To make a short story of 
it, Joshua Shinn, a member, had concluded to reprint the Sermons 
of Wm. Penn,6cc. And W. Wood thought, to reprint sermons, forsale, 
was making merchandize of Friends' sermons, and a violation 
of our Testimony against a hireliug ministry. W'^hen B, W. L.» 
and the others, came in, it was proposed that W. Wood's concern 
should be opened again. 

Dr. Parker thought that as the individual had paid the printer, he 
might reasonably sell the books. But he thought it not consistent 
to have them reprinted without the consent of some revising body. 
He did not seem to have thought of the fact, that they were pub- 
lished in the time ot early Friends, and never called m question by 
them. Nor did the idea appear to have occurred, that those ser- 
mons were professed to be delivered under the immediate motion of 
the Spirit. And if that profession was true, revision was preposte- 
rous. 

B. W. Ladd thought the reprinting of such things was by no 
means proper, however excellent they might have been at the time^ 
Indeed he had thought it might be compared to the manna that was 



THE SOCIETY OF FHIENDS. 115 

Tiduals whose names I have used in the Refutation, hare 
had as full an invitation to meet me, if they were dissa- 
tisfied, as I could give, or they desire. And I do insist* 
that a total failure on their part, hoth as respects the meet- 
ings and the persons immediately concerned, to meet the 
statements contained in the Refutation, is a virtual, but 
full admission of its correctness, - But they have not met 
it, either publicly or privately. 



gathered yesterday. By being kept beyond the time, it bred worms, 
and stank. 

Now, whether these sage reflections had any intended allusion to 
the old papers of George Fox, contained in the Appeal, which had 
then recently been published in this country, i shall not de- 
termine. But if the very sermons of our Early Friends, are such 
as to breed worms and stink, in the estimation of one of their "most 
zealous advocates, the members at large ought to have the informa- 
tion, 



CHAPTER IV. 



While the Conservatives in England, had been com? 
pletelj beaten off from the ground of the doctrines I 
preached, and from the cavilHng objections to my being 
there without a certificate, I had been painfully strug- 
gling with an apprehension of duty, to prove, b j evidence 
that could not be resisted by reasonable men, that George 
Fox was certainly mistaken in some of his claims to ex- 
traordinary revelation. On subjects of Christian docr 
trine, continually rising in the Society, instead of a sim- 
ple recurrence to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, 
the views of George Fox, and of early Friends, were re- 
garded as conclusive. This ground was taken by the 
most prominent members in England. "The Friend,*' 
had come forward boldly in making the writings of 
Friends, the Standard of. doctrine for us. Thomas Evans, 
in his letter to me, had rejected all idea of making any 
reformation in those writings — and B. W. Lad d, in hjs 
letter to J. H. and D. B», had made a high charge against 
me, that I did not hold myself bound to respect the wri- 
tings of our early standard authors, any further than 
they accorded with my understanding of the doctrines of 
Christ and his apostles. And in his interview with me, 
m the 2nd mo, 1835, he said that if I went beyond early 
Friends, I would be a Reformer, and carry off a party. 
And on my saying that I intended to keep very close to 
the Scriptures, he replied. No — the writings of our early 
Friends are something that has risen up between us and 
the Scriptures, and we must not go beyond them. I 
could recite much of a similar character, operating. in 



dPIIE 50CU^T,Y OF FRIENDS. |17 

s, to require some remedy for so fatal an er- 
ror, as to take the views of George Fox as infallibly 
right, and not subject to correction .by the Scripture? 
themselves. 

The Manuscript Journal of George Fox, had fallen into 
any hands; and in that MS. there were papers, plainly 
intended by him for publication, which prove to every 
.dispassionate person, that he, and some of his rrxost inti- 
.matc and most esteemed friends, were, at some times, and 
on some points, under a most extraordinary infatuation. 
The evidence to the point, for the establishment of which 
the Society was so deeply sujSfering, was clear, bcyon4 
all rational contradiction. I believe there v.^as ahand.p/ 
Providence in putting these papers in my possession, and 
I deeply felt the responsibility which rested upon me, in 
jregard to them. I saw that the direct testimony of the 
Holy Scriptures, was laid waste, by a mistaken estimate 
of the claims of George Fox,, to extraordinary revela- 
tions; and it seemed that now, in a most peculiar state , of 
.things, we might almost say, a voice from his grave, ad- 
monished the Society of its delusion and of its danger. 
J felt that it rested upon ?nc, to make this important dis- 
elosure to the Society, authenticated as the f^cts were, in 
-the hand writing of George Fox, and arranged by him 
for publication. 

The thought of the work, however, was painful, from 
the mortifying character of the facts to be disclosedc I 
yielded, at length, to the impressions of duty, and pre- 
^pa.red the Appeal, though I had not time to have it car- 
ried through the press. This task was undertaken by 
Robert Benson, who prefixed an Advertisement. 

I chose to have the Appeal published there, because the 
Papers vrerc all there, except one of the Letters, which J 
have in my possession. 

While this work was in progress, another important 
event took place. 



118 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

It was on the 15th of the 9th month 1836, that I was 
baptized hy John Pye Smith, at liis own house, at Homer- 
ton, near London. ' My investigations of the subject had 
commenced about three years before. Those examina- 
tions had been carried on, in regard to the primary ques- 
tion, about one year, when I fully gave up my former 
arguments, and thos« of the Friends, for the disuse of 
water baptism. But difficnliies attended my mind, in re- 
gard to the adoption of the apostolic practice. These 
difficulties were not removed, till a short time before I 
was baptized. For as I had long been convinced of the 
doctrine in the abstract, and had often fervently prayed, 
that I might be enabled to see with clearness the path of 
practical obedience, when the main difficulty was re- 
moved, I felt it niy duty to press forward. 

I had not made baptism a subject of preaching; nor 
indeed had I discussed the doctrine in conversation, except 
a very few times, when it was forced upon me. For I 
could not see the propriety of urging iton the attention 
of others, till I had given evidence of the sincerity of my 
own convictions- 
Baptism, then, like the Appeal, is an offence of recent, 
date. They have both transpired since the document 
was written; and even the 23rd No. of the Repository 
was published full three years and a half, after I had been 
denounced, as doing more mischief than Elias Hicks had 
ever done in the same length of time. 

I state these facts to show, that the charges which have 
been taken up for the purpose of placing official censure 
upon me, have all departed from the original ground of 
dissatisfaction. 

In a few days after I was baptized, I received a very 
friendly letter from Samuel Gurney, inquiring if the re- 
port which he had heard was true? I immediately re- 
plied — informing him that it was. I have never su;f)J)0sed 



tilE SOClEi'V OF FKIErSD-^y iPJ 

iliat S. G. intended any thing more than a perfeptLy 
friendly inquiry. I think he was drawn in hy others to? 
become a party to transactions, of which he had no inten- 
tion in the beginning. 

In the mean time, I took the earliest opportunity, to 
let my friends at home know what had taken place. One 
of the letters that I wrote by the verj^ first packet, by which 
I could write to America, was to the Clerk of the Month- 
ly Meeting, authorizing and requesting him, (if he thought 
proper to do so), to let the Monthly Meeting know the 
step I had taken — not as the acknowledgment of an 
offence, but as an act of respect to my friends at home, 
and to open the way for inquirj^ and -full satisfaction, in 
regard to what I had done. I a.lso wrote, as soon as pos- 
sible, "A Letter of Reasons," &c., addressed to the Soci- 
ety of Friends, which 1 printed in England. 

Samuel Gurney showed my letter to him, to Josiahi For- 
ster and George Stacy. And they concluded to write 
me a joint letter on the subject. To that letter I imme- 
diately replied, asking them some simple and plain ques- 
tions, which brought the recent declaration of tbe London 
Yearly Meeting, in which they had had an immediate 
agency, directly to bear on the subject of our correspon- 
dence. My object was, to bring them to a scriptural 
discussion of the subject, rather than to appeal to the 
views of Friends, as conclusive in the case. They let 
me know, in their letter, that they thought it right to 
inform my friendsat home. . In my reply, I informed them 
that /had. done this myself already. 

Instead of replying to my letter, or letting it drop as a 
correspondence which they were unable or unwilling to 
mainta,in, they threw^ the subject into the Morning Meet- 
ing, for that body to take it up, as a formal complaint 
against me, to fix a principle for the action of the Society, 
and send it over to tbe Ministers and Elders of Short 
('reek Monthly Meeblng. 



1^0 mOCEEDINGS AND rMXCirLES OF 

Such a document was issued; a copy was sent to Dr. 
Parker and B. W. Ladd, and another to me, together 
with abetter from J. Forster, the clerk; informing me 
that he had written to Samuel Parsons andr Jonathan 
Evans, on the subject. In that letter he told me that 
they declined controversy — that he was unfit for it, &:c., 
and recommended me to the green pastures and still 
waters of life. 

Against all these proceedings from the beginning to crid,^ 
1 thought I had abundant reason to complarin. 

In the first place, I thought it was a violation of the 
rules of propriety, to open a private, and, as I supposed, 
friendly correspondence, an^ failing to sustain their views, 
to throw it into" an official channel, and bring the whole 
weight arid power of the Society to bear upon me as an 
offender. And this ground of complaint on my part, was 
increased by the fact, that there was no rule of discipline 
on the subject, and the Morning Meeting was acting extra- 
judicially in the case. I complained too, that J. Forster 
should, in addition to all the rest, busy himself in sending 
the case to the corrcspojidenis of two other Yearly Meet- 
ings. And then to finish off the business, in which he had 
been so active^ and that worse than gratuitously too— when 
he felt, and virtually acknowledged, that he was not able 
to sustain the position he had taken, in regard to the sub- 
ject of baptism — -after he had brought all the powers of 
the Society to bear upon me — with all the coldness which 
could well^be imagined, he recommended me to the green 
pastures and still waters of Life!! Had he himself been 
occupying those pastures, or seeking to enjoy those waters, 
he had not busi ed hir^self with a correspondence, in which 
he cast a heavy reflection on the Apostles and apostolic 
ghurch, nor would he have set to judge me according to 
the Law, and command rne to be smitten contrary to 
the Law. 

I replied to him at some length, and with freedom j 



THE SOCIETY OF ERIENDS, 121 

letting him know, tiiat I should call upon them publicly, 
to sustain the ground they had taken, or frankly to ac- 
knowledge that they could not. And I left the corres- 
pondence in. England, to be printed, if J. F., S. G. and 
G. S. did not do something to place the subject in a differ- 
ent position. After waiting sometime, my friend James 
Foster received from Josiah Forster, information that they 
did not intend to write any thing further. The corres- 
pondence was then put to the press. 

The Document from the Morning Meeting was receiv- 
ed by the meeting of Ministers and Elders of Short Creek; 
and a committee of four Elders was appointed to treat 
with me. The result of which will appear, when giving 
an account of the dealings of the Monthly Meeting's com- 
mittee. 

The last visit of the Elders was on the evening pre- 
ceding the Monthly Meeting in the 1st month, when 
Baptism was completely given up, as a ground of censure. 
The Preparative Meeting for Mountpleasant, was held 
on 4th day of the week before. At that time the com- 
mittee a,ttended, but the Overseers refused to bring for- 
ward the charge which had been drawn up by B. W. 
Ladd, and the whole project was a failure. 

It was evident that no other charge could then be taken 
up, to be sent to the Monthly Meeting, unless I had been 
treated with, by the Overseers for it. And thus I was left 
without any prosecution lying against me. 

It was not a week after this, when the Monthly Meet- 
ing was held. Dr. Parker proposed that the several com- 
mittees and all the Overseers of the Monthly Meeting, 
should withdraw : which they did. On getting toge'ther 
out of meeting, he inquired why the complaint against 
me, which the committee had made out a month before, 
had not been forwarded to the Monthly Meeting? One of 
the Overseers replied, that that complaint was too vague 
and indefinite, and that it could not be sustained. He in- 

Q 



122 PROCE^UINGS ANi) PRINCIPLES Of 

quired why some other charge had not been brought for- 
ward? To this it was replied, that the complaint drawn 
up by B. W. L. had been palmed upon them, and they 
had to get rid of that first. 

It turns out, as I understand it, that these committees of 
superior meetings, had felt so indignant at the opposi- 
tion they had met in the Preparative Meeting of Mount- 
pleasant, a few days before, that they had determined to 
take, in that Monthly Meeting, Sonne coercive steps'in re- 
gard to it. When I called on Dr. Parker, in the Monthly 
Meeting's committee, to explain this most novel proceed- 
ing, he replied, that if I knew the circumstances of the 
case, I would see that it was the very best that could be 
done at the time. I told him that the only explanation 
I could give to his remark was, that the committee had de- 
termined to lay violent hands on the Preparative Meeting, 
unless some measures against me could be agreed on. To 
this he made no reply— it having been distinctlj^ stated 
id the Dr* before, that when I asked a question," I should 
consider silence as an admission of the thing suggested. — 
So it was plainly understood, as granted by Dn Parker^ 
to be as I supposed. 

Whether Enoch Harris had had any intimation of what 
iras intended or not, he came prepared, and took out of 
his pocket the following written charges:* 

"Elisha Bates has written and published an address to 
friends of Ohio and Indiana Yearly meetings., which re- 
lates to our religious principles, and Testimonies, without 
the advice and concurrance of the liieeting for sufferings 
Also has written, and has had published a pamphlet in 
England, an appeal to friends, which exhebits the most 
insidious attempts to destroy our religious society and 
George Fox's Christian characture and religious reputation^ 
by calling in question the soundness of his religious writ- 

*The Address to the Preparative Meeting is omitted . 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 12^ 

Ings. He has dett}'ed the immediate revelation of the 
Holy spirit, independant of the scriptures; as it appear 
by his late publications, therefore he is not one in faith 
with us. 

He acknowledges himself to have submited to the 
right of Warter Baptism, and in this he has violated a well 
known principle of our society." 

The Overseers were directed to go on, in treating with 
me on these charges^ and then the company being satis- 
fied, returned. . 

From this time, my friends gave up the matter to be 
disposed of as those who held the reins and used the whip 
of the Society, might please. I too saw that with such 
men, it was in vain to reason, and in vain to plead. 

In the transaction, immediately before ug^ there was a 
total disregard of the order of discipline, 

1, It was out of order for Enoch Harris to present a set 
of charges to such a company, before he had treated with 
me, upon them, 

2. It was not merely a departure from the forms of Dis* 
cipline, but a violation of the guarantee of the rights of 
individuals, for such a company to pass judgment, in any 
way, on a set of charges, before the accused individual 
had had an opportunity of atrial, before the constitutional 
officers of the Society. Here were the authorized agents 
of the Monthly, Quarterly and Yearly Meetings, deter- 
mining on the charges on which I was to be prosecuted. 
Where then was the probability of a fair trial in the 
Monthly Meeting, or of redress by an appeal to the 
Quarterly or Yearly Meeting? Not only the ruling 
members, but the appointed agents of all those meetinga 
had decided beforehand, what prosecution should be 
brought; they were in fact, the accusers, prosecutors, and 
judges. And who that had the least sense of moral up- 
rightness, the least regard for his own rights, the least 
feeling of self respect, would recognize such ^ tribunal, 
^ acting "in the wisdom and authority of truth." 



124 PROCEEDINGS \ND PRINCIPLES OF 

Let it be remembered that this prosecution, is both 
formally and in fact, the act of the Society on the broad 
scale. TheMoj^ning Meeting in London laid the foun- 
dation for one branch of the action. The whole subject 
has evidently been a matter of correspondence, between 
the influential members of the several Yearly Meetings^ 
or some of them at least. The complaint, in relation ta 
the Appeal, was predicated on an English copy of that 
work, which I was told belonged to B. W. Ladd, and by 
him put into the hands of Enoch Harris. • The company 
of official persons, which was called out of the Monthly 
Meeting, acting in stern authority, as they did, over the 
Overseers, and intending, as it appears, an immediate 
chastisement of the Preparative Meeting, if the Overseers 
had not agreed to act on the charges before us — did un- 
deniably approve the forms of the charges, and give their 
clearly understood judgment, that the things so charged 
were disownable. They were not called out as mere in- 
dividual members, to consult on some private matter, and 
give their private opinions. Reference was made to the 
appointments which they held — as Overseers, members 
of the committees, &c., when they were called out of the 
meeting, and therefore it was the authority of the meet- 
ings by which they were appointed, that was intended ta 
be brought to bear upon the subjects laid before them. 

When the Overseers had waited upon me with the 
charges as directed, laid them before the Preparative 
Meeting, and that meeting had forwarded them to the 
Monthly Meeting, I wrote to that body a letter" of Resig- 
nation of my membership, giving some of my reasons for 
doing so. But at the same time 1 gave them an assurance 
that I would most readily meet their authorised agents in 
any investigation of the matters at issue between us. 

The following is a copy of it, together with the Adver- 
tisement. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 125 

Letter of resignation of the right of Membership in the 
Society of Friends:. Addressed to Short Creek Monthly- 
Meetings 

ADVERTISEMENT. 

The following Letter AvrtS presented to the Monthly 
Meeting which was held at Short Creek the 21st inst* 
when the Charges referred to in it, w^ere received from 
the Preparative Meeting. 

Two individuals w^ere requested to go out and examine 
it, to see if it w^as suitable to be read. When they came 
back, they neither returned the Letter, nor gave any re- 
port or information respecting it. 

In this proceeding there was not only a manifest de- 
parture from good order, but an act of disrespect both to 
the waiter of the Letter, and to those to whom it was di- 
rected. Every man has an undeniable right to leave a 
Society with which he may have been in connection. — 
Andif so, he has ar/g7i^ ^0 be heard. To refuse this priv- 
il-ege is an assumption of Church Power, inconsistent with 
the understanding of the age in which wx live. And 
those to whom the Letter was addressed, were the propier 
judges of its suitableness to the occasion. It w^as both 
their duty and their right to have heard what I had said.. 
But it is an evil of increasing magnitude in the Society of 
Friends, that the most important matters are disposed of 
by a few, while the great body of the members do not un- 
derstand what is going on. 

The charges sent up by the Preparative Meeting are as 
follows : which, to be better understood, I have numbered. 

1. "The Overseers inform that Elisha Bates has writ- 
ten and published an Address to Friends of Ohio and In- 
diana Yearly Meetings, which relates to our religious 
principles and testimonies, without the advice and con- 
currence of the Meeting for Sufferings. 

^, "Also has w^ritten and has had published a Pamphlet 



126 PROCJJEDINGS AND PRINCIPLKS OF 

in England, An Appeal to . Friends, which exhibits the 
most insiduous attempts to destroy the Society, and 
George Fox's christian character and religious reputation, 
by calling in question the soundness of his religious writ- 
ings. 

3. "He has denied the immediate revelation of the 
Holy Spirit independent of the Scriptures; as it appears 
by his late publications, therefore he is not one in faith 
with us. 

4. "He acknowledges himself to have submitted to the 
rite of Water Baptism, and in this he has violated a well 
known principle of our Society.'' 

When the subject was introduced into the Meeting, by 
reading the forgoing charges, some discussion took place, 
and various changes in the charges themselves were pro= 
posed. But the Meeting could agree in none, except in 
leaving out the third charge altogether. The others re- 
mained as sent up, and a committee was appointed to 
treat with me on them. 

But as the Resignation of Membership in the Society was 
complete on my part, the Letter is now offered to the 
public, not only for the information of the members of the 
Monthly Meeting of Short Creek, but of the whole Socie-^. 
ty^ and the community at large. 

Mountpleasant, 2nd Mo. 22, 1837. E. BATES, 



MQU7itpleasant^ %id mo, 20/^, 1 837, 
To Short Creek Monthly Meeting: 
Dear Friends — 

I have now, for upwards of four years, suifercd an al- 
most unexampled course of unkindness, from those I had 
regarded as my friends. The causes of this, so far as I 
am able to speak with confidence, have been: 

1. My holding the divine Authority of the Holy Scrip- 
tures as conclusive in all matters of Faith and Practice ; 
and" preaching the leading doctrines contained in them — 



TliE SOCIETY OF IRIE^DS. l2t 

tbiistantly holding, at the same time, that no doctrine 
which is contained in the Scriptures should be rejected^ 
nor any doctrine that is not contained in them be behev 
edor promulgated. 

2. For cautioning my Friends against those errors in 
regard to fundamental doctrines, which have been prcr- 
ductive of the most lamentable consequences in the So- 
ciety; and which are still exerting a deadly influence — - 
clothed, as they were in the late schism, with the charac-^ 
ter of the Spiritual Views of Early Friends, 

Called, as I believe I have been, by the Head of the 
Church, to testify the gospel of the. grace of God, I have 
been engaged to promulgate those blessed doctrines which 
are recorded in the Scriptures; and to warn against those 
things which appeared to operate against a free and 
heartfelt reception of them. Of this description are sen- 
timents and form of expression, which lie scattered 
through the writings of our Early Friends; and also that 
implicit confidence in them which would recognize those 
writings as the depositories of the true meaning of Scrip- 
ture. I have believed it to be my duty to show that this 
confidence rests on a false foundation— is fallacious in prin- 
ciple, and pernicious in practice. 

Deeply sensible of the infirmities of human nature, for 
which I was willing to make large allowances to our Ear= 
ly Friends, I have desired that we might escape their 
weakness^ and correct their mistakes, by a recurrence to 
the revealed Will of God— receiving the doctrines a& 
there taught, and seeking the help of the Holy Spirit, to 
write them on our hearts, to give us access to God through 
Jesus Christ, to shed abroad in our hearts the love of God, 
and to lead us in the way of the obedience of Faith. 

For these causes my religious reputation has been as- 
sailed, by various modes of private detraction. And when 
the minds of Friends were prepared for it, ofiScial meas- 
ures were taken, a,fFecting both my moral and religious 



128 PllOCEEmNCiS AND PItlNCirLES OP 

character^ and pkiuily intended to result in my disowll* 
ment. 

These nneasures were either without DiscipHne, or con^ 
Irary to its provisions. 

Immediately after the Document of the Meeting for 
Sufferings had been abandoned, and the new charge which 
was got up at the Preparative Meeting by a combination 
of committees, had been shown to be futile and untenable^ 
a company was called out of the Monthly Meeting, con- 
sisting of members of various committees, the Overseers 
of the Monthly Meeting, &c.,in which a new set of charges 
was agreed upon — which was afterwards presented to me 
by the Overseers of this Meeting, laid before the Prepara- 
tive Meeting, and by that forwarded to you. 

This whole proceeding was out of order, and subver* 
sive of those privileges which the Discipline was intended 
to secure. 

This set of charges is divided into four heads. The first 
relates to a material part of the Refutation of the Docu- 
ment, by which I proved myself to be in the n^/ii(, and the 
Meeting for Sufferings to be in the wrong. By the pub* 
lication of the Address it is shown that the opposition 
which was made to it, was to the doctrines of the Resur- 
rection of the Dea,d and the Day of Judgment, as set forth 
in Scripture language. It shows also that the statement 
in the Document, that it contained 'few or no quotations" 
from our acknowledged works, is incorrect. To bring 
forward this charge was contrary to the Scripture which 
says: "Keep thee far from a false matter: and the inno- 
cent and righteous'slay thou not: fori will not justify the 
wicked." Ex. 23, 7. The second charge assumes that the 
writings of George Fox are not to be called in question: 
having particular reference, though not exclusively, to the 
Extracts which I have lately made both from his manu- 
script and printed Journal, in a Pamphlet entitled "An 
peal to the Society of Friends." And in the fiice of the 



THE SOCIETY OF rillENDS. 129 

most mortifying facts, it so fulij takes upon tlie Society, 
the responsibility of those Extracts, and of his religious 
writings without limitation, as to represent the calling of 
them in question as ".n insiduous attempt io destroy the 
Society — and as suchc a disownable offence. 

The third head is in terms ths.t I may not understand. 
And when I asked the overseer who presented it, for the 
ground on which he rested it, hega,ve me no distinct reply. 
If it means, that I do not believe we are warranted to 
expect a revelation of the doctrines of Christianity, indepen- 
dent of tlfe Scriptures, it is true. If it means, that I deny 
the immediate work and witness of the Spirit, in the 
heart, it is not true. I never denied that doctrine, and I 
trust never shall. Ji this is the idea intended to be cori- 
\eyed, I unhesitatingly pronounce it false. 

The fourth head, relating to Baptism, places the Socie- 
ty in a strongly marked opposition to the commandments 
and example of the Apostles, and, to the Practice of the 
Church while under their immediate direction, and while 
in the possession of the highest degree of spirituality, and 
the most extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, ever conferred 
on the Church. To suppose the ordinances have ceased in 
point of obligation, is one thing. To make the observance 
of.ihemadi'sQzcnaMe.offencej is another. The first I be- 
lieve is unwarranted by Scripture, and contrary to the 
Practice of the i^Hftestlcs and Apostolic Churches. The 
second I apprehend is a new thing in Christendom. 

While these things have been going on, persons in 
prominent stations, have been countenanced in preaching 
and otherwise promulgating doctrines, identical with those 
of Elias Hicks, And on the other hand, many estimable 
members of the Society, who were known to maintain the 
doctrine of Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and Justifica- 
tion by Faith, have been subjected to various liarrassing 
proceedings, to discourage them from promulgating those 
R 



i30 PROCEEDir^GS ANI> FRINCIPLE^ dt^ 

doctrines, to destroy their influence, and finally to pirt 
them down. 

After the unhappy effects of many passages in the writ- 
ings of Early Friends, had been exempHfied in the late 
Separpction, and after the attention of the Society had 
been^called to the danger of the same things, those very 
writings have been earnestly recommended to Friends 
generally, and especially to the youth — without any dis- 
crimination, or an}'^ caution, agamst the unsound or un=^ 
guarded sentiments and forms of expression which are 
scattered through them. And not only so, but the Doc- 
trinal Treaties of the early Members of the Societ}^ which- 
really contain the most objectionable passages, have been 
Fecognized as in strict accordance with Holy Scripture. 

I object to the course of proeeeding against myself— 
and complain of the unldndness, and the unfairness with 
which they have been marked. And I protest against 
the dissemination, and recognition of unsound doetrine,, 
and the opposition which in various ways has been made 
te that which is sound. And I exceedingly regret that 
the Society, by a combination of measures, should have 
fixed upon itself, a character so decidedly opposed to 
Primitive Christianity. 

My principles have been openly held. When I haye 
found: an opinion to be contrary to Scripture, I have 
abandoned it; while the doctrines vvhioiW believed to be 
established by that authority, I have maintained without 
fear, and without compromise. I have sincerely endeav- 
ored to promote a christian reformation in the Society — 
without walking in craftiness, or handling the Word of 
God deceit ftilly. And now, as the Society, in its official 
capacity, has shown a determination to reject both me 
and my labours, 1 feel no disposition to impose myself up- 
on it. And though I am fullj^ sensible that there are 
many individuals in the Society, who truly love the Lord 
Jesus Christ, yet the official acts of the Body, have fixed 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 131 

MpQTi it a character, with which I dare not be identified. 

I therefore have concladedj painful as the conclusion i§, 
to offer jou the Resignation of ?dY right of Member- 
ship in the Society of Friendse 

I do not take this course to prevent investigation ; for it 
is my intention, at a suitg.ble time, and that before long, 
to publish u Summary Yiew of the Case, embracing a re- 
ply to the new charges. And I shall always hold myself 
ready to meet any official member of the Society, or any 
individual whose name I may have used, in a fair and 
friendly investigation of any doctrine I hold, or any fact I 
may have stated. 

And now, in the dissolution of the bond by which we 
have been bound together in a social relation, I desire 
that ^Aa/Cha.rity, which is an e?,sential part of vital reli- 
;gion, may suffer no diminution. 

I do not feel myself as placed without the pale of the 
•Church. I recognize the true believers in the Lord 
Jesus, whatever may be their denomination — and I trust 
that I shall be recognized by them« i trust that in the 
common Faith, the language will be reciprocated, "One 
is our Master, even Christ, and all we are brethren.''— 
May they know more and more of the consolation in 
Christ, the comfort of love, and the fellowship of the Spirit 
—and increase and abound in those Christian virtues and 
works of righteousness, by which our Heavenly Fathers is 
glorified. 

"Christ loved his Church, and gave himself for it, that 
he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water 
by the word, and present it to himself, a glorious Church, 
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such tiling." The 
work of Reformation and the purging away of corrup- 
tions, arise from the love of Christ, And happy will it be 
for those who do not despise his love, or resist his work of 
purification. 

Assured beyond all doubt, that the hand of ihe Lord is 



132 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

at work, to cany on a Reformation, and extend the Re- 
deemer's Kingdom in the earth — by the revival of vital 
Christianity, as it was presented to the world by the Son 
of God and his Apostles — I cannot believe that it will be 
frustrated. The instruments vvhich he may be pleased to 
employ — however they may be despised, he is able to 
sustain and bless. With this persuasion, I cast myself on 
his unfailing care — and leave events to his unerring Wis- 
dom. 

With deep sorrow for the present state of the Society — 
with earnest desires for the effectual conversion of those 
by whom its affairs are conducted — and tender sympathy 
with its sound and suffering members, 

I remain your friend, 

ELISHA BATES. 

This Letter when presented to the meeting, instead of 
being read, as is uniformly done where the rights of in- 
dividuals are at all respected; was referred to Dr. Parker, 
and Robert La.dd, to go out and see if it was fit to be read* 
On their return, they kept the Letter, and said not one 
word to the meeting about it. 

The Meeting took up the charges from the Prepara- 
tive Meeting, and concluded to drop that which relates 
to revelation. They were now reduced to three. 

L For publishing the Address, which forms a part of 
the Refutation. 2. For calling in question the writings 
of G. Fox, noticed in the Appeal. 3. For being Bap- 
tized. 



CHAPTER Y. 



The plan of the prosecution being thus agreed on, a 
Committee was appointed to carry out the disownment. 
The usual number appointed to treat with an offender is 
two. But in my case they selected four. These were 
John Loyd, Robert Ladd, John Hall, and John C. Hill. 

I then published my Letter of R.esignation, and deter- 
mined to claim a release from all obligations to the Society: 
but at the same time, I resolved to meet its accredited 
agents, with all readiness, in a full investigation of every 
thing they had to lay to my charge. 

The Morning Meeting in London, in its document sent 
over to the Ministers and Elders here, in order to bring 
me under dealings, had taken the position of bearing a 
public testimony against the practice of baptism, as no part 
of the Christian Dispensation. And the Elders in Liver- 
pool, just before I embarked for America, sent me a note, 
signed by five men and five women — in which, after 
mentioning my "having submitted to. the rite of water 
baptism," they say; "In this thou hast violated a well 
known principle of the Society,'^ and in our judgment, thou 
art thereby disqualified from any longer exercising the 
office of a minister among us, and it is our a.dvice to thee 
to abstain therefrom." 

Considering these official acts, and what the IMeeting 
for Sufferings had done in my a,bsence, I determined, on 



*Theframers of the charge sent up to the Monthly Meeting on 
the subject of Baptism, ha.ve used the language oftiie Liverpool 
J^-lders. 



131 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

j-elurning home, to decline the aKendance of meetings*— 
1 could neither discharge theduties of a minister, nor take 
my usual ?cat in meeting, without being regarded and 
represented by my enemies, as 2V??^05m^ upon the Society. 
And to lay myself under any restraints in regard to preach- 
ing, or to change my seat, would have been to exercise an 
agency in my own degradation. And as the otfence was 
against the undeniable doctrines of the Apostles, I did 
not think it proper to be subject, no not for an hour, in 
that way, to those who would degrade me for holding the 
doctrines of Christ. But I continued my custom of read- 
ing a portion of the Scriptures in my family^ and on first 
days I held these simple religious services at 3 o'clock in 
the afternoon, to which many of my neighbours came. — 
For though I had it distinctly understood that these Scrip- 
ture readings were intended as a domestic regulation, 
yet their sympathy with us in our peculiar situation, led 
them to participate with us, on these occasions. 

The manner of conducting them was, to read a portion 
of the Old Testamcni, and then another in the New; and 
I usually made some comm.ents on the passages I had 
read. And as I felt my mind so engaged, Prayer was of- 
fered, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I did not 
Introduce singing, though our hearts were often made to 
rejoice, under a sense of the goodness of God to us. For 
being still a member of the Society of Friends, I did not 
wish to violate its order any further than an imperious 
-sense of duty demanded. 

On the first visit of the committee of elders, that waited 
on me, on the subject of Baptism, I mentioned my con- 
clusion to decline the attendant of meetings, and my prac- 
tice on first day afiernoons. All which they said they ap- 
proved. But the Conservative Friends made great ob- 
jection to it- and especially to mj prayings and my chWA- 
Yenh kneeling wit\i me on those occasions. And threats 
w^ere thrown oul;, of taking under dealing any members 
who might attend. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIEInDS. 13^5 

Wb€ii my Letter of Resignation of Membership was 
published, I commenced holding public meetings: which 
have been largely attended: and in reference to which I 
can say : "Hitherto the Lord hath helped me." Having 
claimed the liberty of the Gospel, I set out to preach 
those doctrines for wbich I had been so long persecuted 
in the Society of Friends. The believers in Christ in the 
different denominations, gave me the hand of christian 
fellowship, and opened their meetinghouses forme wher- 
ever I w^ent. 

The Friends, however, were still pressing on with their 
measures for my disawnment. They v/ere arvvare of the 
sympathy which was excited towards me in the christian 
public; and they manifested an anxious solicitude to des- 
troy it. In the Document issued by the Meeting for Suf- 
ferings, in my absence, they ha,d charged me with making 
statements dismge7iuous and untrue. And though I had 
triumphantly refuted the charge, and turned it back upon 
those who made it — so that they have not dared to meet 
me in their own defence, though they have been invited 
to do so; yet they have still endeavoured to fix the charge 
of falsehood upon me; to destroy both the sympathy in 
the public mind, and the effects of the statements I had 
made, and those which Ihey knew it was in my power to 
make. They endeavoured, too, to prejudice the other 
societies against me, by telling them that I would soon 
raise the same difficulties among them, that I had raised 
among the Friends. The object plainly was, to make me 
an outcast in religious society, shunned and hated by ail- 
But through mercy these measures have been over-ruled, 
to produce results, exactly the reverse of those which 
were intended. 

On the fii*st visit of the committee. (Robert Ladd, Johft 
Hall, and John C. Hill), we discoursed freely on the sev- 
eral charges wdiich had been brouglit against me. 

On the first. I showed that ihe Addre«r vr^s rabH'^L.c.i 



13G PROcirzDiisos and prii^ciples op 

as a Fiecessaiy part of my defence, against the unjust, and 
injurious attack which the meeting for sufferings had made 
upon me. That attack had impenxhed mj moral charac- 
ter, in regard to the statements which I had rnade in the 
23rd number of the Repository. I had been virtually ad- 
vertised to the world, as a mean and artful liar. This 
was done when J was not only absent^ but in a foreign 
country. And on my return, a trial on the charges con-^ 
tained in the Document, was denied me, and investiga- 
tion before the constitutional authorities of the Society 
had been evaded, by the most unvforthy artifices. I had 
no other alternative, than to appeal to the Society, and 
to the christian public, in print. 

In doing this, the Address itself was called for. And 
by the publication of it, I showed that the Doctrine of the 
Resurrection, which ,vfas so offensive, was set forth in 
Scripture language, I proved, also, that the meeting for 
sufferings was wrongs in saying that it contained few or no 
quotations from our acknowledged works. 

These facts were material to my defence. And I could 
not possibly have established them as I did, without pub- 
lishing the Address itself. 

It was therefore most unreasonable, that I should be 
made an offender^ for publishing a necessary part of my 
own defence — a part, too, which convicted the meeting 
for sufferings of being in manifest error — it was a testi- 
mony against vrhich they have not ventured to make a 
defence. 

After I had made some free remarks on the unreasona- 
bleness of this charge, I said to one of the committee, 
that, as a manof sense and uprightness, I was sure he was 
ashamed of the charge. His reply was, that he was sorry 
that it was put in. To this the others made no objection. 
This charge Avas therefore completely given up by the 
committee, as improper to have been brought against me. 

When we came to the second charge: "Also he has 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 137 - 

written and has had published, a pamphlet in England, 
"An Appeal to Friends,' which exhibits the most insidu- 
ous attempts to destroy our religious society, and George 
Fox's christian character, and religious reputation, by 
calling in question the soundness of his religious writings:" 
I inquired of the committee what was the offence? Was 
it in merely publishing the Appeal, or was it in calling in 
question the things it contained from the Journal of Geo. 
Fox? I told them that I thought the language of the 
cha,rge was clear. But I wished to knowvvhether we 
were agreed. For, if the offence was in the publication^ 
they would be nonsuited. Because it was a principle in 
all jurisprudence, that offences were to be tried by the 
laws which were in force where the offence was committed, — - 
For example, a man cannot be tried in Ohio, for an of- 
fence committed in Virginia; and when there was no Law 
in Virginia that was violated. I showed them that the 
Appeal was published in England, where there was no 
prohibition of discipline against publishing, without the 
previous consent of some supervisory body. And besides 
all this, it was neither printed nor published by me, though 
I freely confessed that I both vf rote it, and consented to its 
publication. 

After making some remarks on the invalidity of a 
charge, resting merely on the publication of the pamphlet, 
they freely and fully concurred with me, that the offence 
charged by the society, was for my calling in question the 
things to which the Appeal related. In fact, it is impos- 
sible to give the language of the charge any other mean- 
ing. 

When we had agreed thus far, I took up the Appeal, 
and read George Fox's Letter to Oliver Cromwell; in 
which he calls himself "^Ae Son of God^"^ and says: "My 
kingdom is not of this world." And I asked them if they 
were prepared to show that I was wrong, in calling such 
language as this in question? Robert Ladd asked, if the 



138 rR0CEEDINC4S ANIi PRIInC1FLE& OV 

Scriptures did not speak of so7is1 I answered — ''True-^- 
But does not the most ignorant believer that jou can findf 
know the difference between the term, "<2 son''' — and 'HIm 
aSo?i," which is applicable only to the Lord Jesus Christ?" 
John C. Hill said, he did not suppose that George Fox 
knew the difference. I said, "If you admit that he did 
not know that difference, or mean what he said, you must 
admit, at the same time, that he was not moved by the, Lord 
to say it. And if he was not moved by the Lord, as he 
said he was, he was under a delusion,'''' J. C. Hill replied, 
that he would rather believe that he was under a delu- 
sion^ than to believe that he meant what he said. I an- 
swered: If you grant this, Y/e are agreed. But then you 
are not acting in conformity with your appointment; for 
you are appointed to treat with me for calling in question^ 
the 5oimc?7z^5s of these things. You must remember, too, 
that you have no right to find out m^eanings for George 
Fox— it is the writings, that the society has determined ta 
defend, and you are to take them as they are. 

I then read the Letter of Margaret Fell iiiid others to 
George Fox: and remarked to them— that they were ap- 
pointed to treat with me for calling in question the sound- 
ness of these, things, and I wanted them to set about it. 

John Hall remarked, that they did not know that "them 
papers" were George Fox's. I told him if they A:?iCTy 
nothing about it, tliey were of course incompetent to say 
any thing. But apart from that, the meeting had raised 
no objections to the genuiaeness of the papers before us, 
and it was not for them to do it. The meeting, in fact, 
had fully admitted their genuineness, in recognizing them 
as the writings of George Fox, and in making it a disown- 
able offence to call them in q.uestion.^ For in their zeal to 
defend the character of George Fox, they had entirely 
forgotten to make the distinction betv/een vi^hat he wrote 
himself, and what others wrote to him: and included the 
whole under tlte general terms of -^his religious writings.' 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 139 

I showed them that these papers were directly blasphe- 
fxious: and that the Society had made it a disownable of- 
fence to call those blasphemies in question! that Quaker- 
ism, in fact, was to stand or fa^il with them. 

After remarking at some length, on these things, and 
showing the monstrous absurdity of them, I asked them if 
they had any thing further to say, why I should not have 
called them in question? Eat they had nothing to say^. 

We then passed on to the subject of Baptism. John 
C. Hill appeared to be relied on for this part of the busi- 
ness. And he began to ask me some questions about the 
use of Ba,ptism. I told them that they had come to discuss 
the subject in a. business point of view. I was charged 
with having violated a well known principle of the Soci- 
ety. And I inquired for the Discipline on which I was to 
be tried. They confessed that there was no discipline in 
the case. 

J. C Hill remarked, that there was no discipline to dis- 
own a member for joining another religious society. I 
replied, That is true, and there is no need for any. For 
in such a case, the individual wishes to leave the Society, 
and it is a matter of agreemeiit between the parties. 

J. Kali replied, that they should suppose that any one 
that had acted as contrary to the views of Friends as I had 
done, would wish to leave the Society. But, I answered, 
you are as wrong in your supposition, as you are in your 
doctrine ; for when I received baptism, I did not wish to 
leave the Society. 

I still pressed them for the rule by which I was to be 
judged, and wanted to know if it was the mere will of the 
ruling members — and showed that if this principle were 
admitted, the rights of individuals would be open to inva- 
sion—and the greatest improprieties might follow. 

They had, in the previous conversation, expressed their 
belief in the Scriptures: a,nd I asked them for a rule of 
♦Scripture to justify their proceedings. Whiere did they 



140 PROCEEDINGS AND PRIx\CIPLES OF 

find in Scripture, that the receiving of Baptism was a 
cause of disownment^ or even of disunity^ in the Christian 
Church? J. C. Hiil, to whom the question was particularly 
addressed, confessed that there was nothing of the kind to 
be found in the Scriptures. And he wen-; on to say, that 
he did not believe that the receiving of baptism would 
hurt any one, and he was sorry that it was put into the 
charges. The others were entirely unable to sustain the 
charge as a disownahle offence, nor do I recollect that they 
attempted to do it, from Scripture, from discipline, or from 
reason. And thus the third and last charge was left, in 
fact, given up — one of the committee wishing it had not 
been put in, and the others having nothing to saje 

Instead of making any sort of candid representation 
of the case, to the Monthly Meeting, they made a long 
Report, as it appears, prepared by some other hand for 
them, in which they said, in a phraseology that iss very 
common on such occasions, .that I was not in a suitable 
disposition to condemn my deviation, or something equiv- 
alent to this; and then went on to take up a number of 
new charges. 

To this E." Harris, one of the overseers, objected, as 
contrary to the discipline. He said that the Yearly Meet- 
ing had decided, that no acknowledgment should be re- 
ceived by a monthly meeting, for any charges which had 
not regularly come through the Preparative meeting. 
And if they went on to disown, on charges thus intro- 
duced by the com.mittee, the meeting in future would 
have no right to receive any acknowledgment from me, in 
order for my reinstatement in the Society. 

This argument, however, had no weight against taking 
up the new charges. They were received, and three oth- 
er persons were added to the committee. These were, 
Dr. Isaac Parker, James Steer, and Evan Hurford: The 
two first being Elders. 

On the first day of the 4th month, several of this com- 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 141 

mittee called upon me, without having furnished me 
with a copy of the new charges, or even notified me of 
the time thej intended to come. 

To such proceedings T objected in decided terms. I 
told them that it was altogether a matter of condescension, 
to meet them at all. And after the surprising course they 
had taken, it surely was as little as they could do, to 
furnish me with a copy of the new charges, and notify 
me of the time they intended to call upon me. It was 
then agreed that we should meet again on the 14th of the 
month. On making this arrangement, I told them, that I 
was determined it should be a thorough investigation of 
ail the charges; and that for this purpose, we would ad- 
journ from day to day, if necessary, for a month. 

Before we parted, I told them, I should ask them, when 
we met again, Whether the principle which the Society 
said I had violated^ in receiving water baptism, was in 
force in the time of the apostles or not? And I stated it 
then, because I wanted them to take time, and be pre- 
pared to answer it correctly. 

They gave me the following paper, as the Report which 
they had made to the previous meeting; and as the mi- 
nute of that meeting. It will be observed, however, that 
it has neither address, signature, nor date. It has not 
one single line, in the character of a minute of the meet- 
ing. It carries on the face of it no evidence of having 
ever been before the meeting. They presented no doc" 
ument to show what the meeting wished — nor the appoint- 
ment of the new members of the committee — nor the con- 
tinuance of the old. The following is an exact copy: 

"The Committee appointed to treat with Elisha Bates 
report they have had an oppertunity with him and find 
upon examination of the case, he has in one of his essays 
in his repository falsely charged the meeting for sufferings 
of Ohio Yearly Meeting with being opposed to the doc- 
trine of the Reserection and the day of Judgment; and 



142 TROCEHDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

ill another he charges erroneously the society with' being 
inveteratcly and extensively opposed to evangelicar doc- 
trine, and to the preaching of faith in Christ, and says the 
society is holding up their own writings as standards of 
doctrine, more immediately binding on us than the scrip- 
tures, he has also published various pamphlets without the 
consent of the Meeting for sufferings, in violation of our 
discipline calculated to promote discord and disunity in 
the society. 

He has recently sent in his resignation of right of mem- 
])ership which we propose read in this meeting. His 
writings and general conduct clearly manifesting that he 
has not unity v/ith the society." 

i have followed the original in punctuation, &;c., that 
I might not be charged with having made alterations. 

It turns out, that this paper contained neither the min- 
ute of the meeting, nor the report of the Committee. — 
The facts drawn from them on their last visit were briefly 
"these — That v/hen they met on the morning of the month- 
ly meeting, to agree on a report, a paper for that purpose 
was presented by one of their number, and accepted. — 
But on my inquiring if it was v/ritten by that member, or 
by some other person, they refused to answer the ques- 
tion — saying it was none of my business. On inquiring, 
if the paper they had given me, contained a true copy of 
that which was adopted by the committee as their report? 
and as such presented to the monthly meeting, they con- 
fessed that it did not. On asking what were the changes 
which had been made in it 2 they affected to be unable to 
define what they were. On inquiring who had made the 
changes, they seemed to be much at a loss for an answer. 
I asked them if tkci/ had done it? They answered. No* 
I inquired if the meeting had altered it, or authorized its 
being altered? They rcpHcd that it had not — and thus 
they left the matter. The result of these disclosures is 
the proof that they consented to be the mere tools of other 



tliE SOCIETY OF riliENDS. 143 

persons, vrho directed what they should do, and what they 
should say* 

The time of meeting arriyed: and I thought it proper 
to have some friends present, who had personal knowledge 
of some of the matters connected v/ith the charges. I 
had given them to understand this, when the appointment 
w^as made, and had let them know that I thought proper 
for Benjamin W. Ladd to attend. This was the more 
necessary, as he had denied saying that "the writings of 
our Early Friends were something that had risen up be- 
tween us and the Scriptures, and we must not go beyond 
them\'^ which I was prepared to prove he did say. I had 
accordingly notified him to attend. He called at my 
house- in the morning, before the committee arrived: 
and after sitting a few* minutes, he went off, remark- 
ing that he had a little business to attend to in town. 
I told him, he would of course return— to which he as- 
sented. 

The time appointed for the meeting of the committee 
was 10 o'clock. But they did not come till L They 
were, however, in the neighbourhood, consulting with 
different persons, as I was informed — and among the rest 
with B.W. Ladd. At 10 o'clock, five of the committee, 
Roheii; Ladd, John Hall, James Steer, Evan Hurford, and 
J . C. Hill, came to my house. The first thing they did, 
was to object, in positive term^, to having any person 
with us, except my own family, and my son-in-law Horton 
J. Howard. I told them that I wanted witnesses to 
prove certain facts, which were material in the case. 
They said they did not want to have much to say; but 
just to ha,ve an opportunity witli me alone. I let them 
know that if they did not intend an investigation of the 
charges, I wished to have nothing further to say to them. 
But if they would go into a fair investigation, which had 
been agreed to in making that appointment, I would 
waive my claims to having witnesses present, at that time<> 



144 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 

The friends whom I had summoned to attend to give evi- 
dence, if necessary, were requested to withdraw, but not 
to leave the house. In the course of the afternoon, the 
committee proposed that B* W. Ladd should be sent for. I 
told them that as soon as they would admit other witnesses 
to be called in, I was willing that B. W. L. should be admit- 
ted. But this they would by no means agree to. And 
this objection to the presence of witnesses, was tenaciously 
maintained, till they broke up, in confusion, in the even- 
ing. In the mean time^ B. W. L. went home: and the 
next morning, when the committee met, no objection was 
made to the company of witnesses, or even of spectators, 
of which several attended. 

I mention these facts to show the sort of management^ 
to which the committee and their advisers, resorted. 

When we proceeded to business, I called for the min- 
ute, under which they were acting: but they produced 
none. I then entered into the inquiries already noticed, 
in regard to the paper which they had given me as their 
report, when we were together before. 

I then inquired why they made no report to the Month- 
ly meeting, on the old charges,— but introduced other 
charges, which had not been before the Preparative meet- 
ing? The only reason they gave was, that they thought 
it right. I wanted to know if it was not to lose 
sight of the old charges, without saying any thing about 
it? To this they gave no definite answer. 

I asked them what were the reasons, so far as they 
knew, for taking up the first charge, relating to the publi- 
cation of the Address? The reason given was, that it 
was contrary to Discipline. I inquired if they did not 
know that this rule of discipline has been violated in the 
publication of "The Friend," "The Defence of Friends,'' 
(an 8vo. vol. published anonymously by Friends of Phila- 
delphia, during the Hicksite controversy), and sundry 
Pamphlets published by Friends of Philadelphia? And 



lilE SOCIETY OF FRIErJDS. 145 

had iiol they themselves, disregarded, and virtually bro- 
ken, the Rule of Discipline, bj receiving and counte- 
nancing some or all of those publications? The commit- 
tee made no reply to the first part of the inquiry — but 
J. C. H. remarked, that there Vr^as no discipline against 
reading such things. But I inquired further, "Is it ac- 
cording to order for a member to support a religious peri- 
t)dical relating to our doctrines, &:c., that is not published 
under the supervision of the Meeting for Sufferings?" 
The answer by J. C. H. vv^as: '^I do not think it would 
be." 

After some remarks on the unfairness of the attack 
which was made upon me by the Meeting for Sufferings— 
and of the evasion of an investigation of its document, I 
asked: "Was it reasonable that I should have submitted 
the Refutation of the Document of the Meeting for Suf- 
ferings, to that meeting itself, for revision?" To this no 
answer could be had. Tliey sat mute, till I was tired of 
waiting, and went on to another subject. 

When we passed on to the 2nd charge I said : 
"The Committee are requested, each one, distinctly to 
say, whether they are disposed to treat with me as an of- 
fender, for calling in question the language used in George 
Fox's Letter to Oliver Cromwell, and in the Letter of 
Margaret Fell and others to George Fox, and in the Let- 
ter of Isi. Fell to J. Naylor, and in Ann Curtis's Letter to 
G. F., and in Thomas Lowers' Letter to George and 
Margaret Fox?" 

James Steer said. They were there to treat with me 
for caUing them in question: and he was sorry that I 
called them in question. John C. Hill appeared to be 
alarmed at this answer, and entered his dissent from it: 
but without giving one of his own. James Steer then 
added: "I dont think those things would do now." Evan 
Hurford said he hardly thought they were George Fox's 
papers. "If they were, he v/as either a. fool or a mad- 
T 



146 PIlOCEEDli\GS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

man." But he thought it could be proved that he was 
neither. On finding that I had written down his answer, 
(for I not only did it before them, but read their answers 
for correction), he begged me not to retain it. But I told 
him it was too good an answer, and too creditable to him, 
to be spared. 

Robert Ladd would give no answer to the Question, 
but said: "It was wrong in me to look up all those old 
writings and publish them, whether they were their wri- 
tings or not." 

John Hall had nothing to say. 

Q. "Do you think that those vrho cannot defend the 
language of those letters, as sound and proper, can con- 
sistently censure me for calling them in question?" 

James Steer ansvs^ered for the committee, that I was 
taking them beyond their limits. 

Q. "Do you think that those who regard these letters 
as capable of no defence, and as reproachful to the Soci- 
ety, can maintain that the writers of them, at the time 
of writing them, vi^ere moved by the Lord, or under the 
influence of the Holy Spirit?" 

Evan Hurford replied, that his answer v^^as conclusive 
on that: and that he had nothing to say to it. 

Qi "Do you not admit that those persons, in some of 
their claims of revelation, or of being moved by the Lord, 
were under a delusion ?" 

To this no answer could be obtained. 

Embarrassed, and not knowing what to say, it was not 
to be expected that they should treat with me, as they 
had been appointed to do, for calling in question the . 
soundness of the writings before us. And after having 
given them ample opportunity for the purpose, or for 
extricating themselves from the difficulty they were in, 
if that had been practicable, I proceeded to the third 
charge, which says: 

"He acknowledges himself to have submitted to the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS* 147 

rite of water baptism, and in this he has violated a well 
known principle of our Society." 

I recurred to the notice I had given them two weeks 
before, and said: "Will the committee say, whether that 
principle (which the charge asserted I had violated,) was 
in force in the time of the Apostles or not?" 

James Steer answered: "We need not go so far back. 
We need not go back further than the rise of our Socie- 
ty." No objection was made to this, and it was written 
down as the a,nswer of the committe — and the result of 
two. weeks consideration and consultation. 

I asked: "Then was it a principle of Primitive Christi- 
anity?" 

To this ?io answer was given. 

After waiting sometime, I proceeded: "Will you show 
how this charge does not apply to the Apostle Paul, who 
both received and administered baptism; and to- the Apos- 
tle Peter who commanded it, both to Jewisli and to Gen- 
tile Converts; and to the other Apostles who concurred 
in its being so commanded; and to the ApostoHc Church, 
in which it was practiced — ^as fully, and as censoriously 
as it applies to me? Was not their practice as irrecon- 
cileable to the principle in question as mine?" 

To this no answer was given. 

Q. "Can you show by Scripture that the practice of 
Water Baptism was ever laid aside in the Christian 
Church?" 

The answer was given by James Steer in these words: 
^•Very short. Pass over that as easy as thee can." 

Q. "Do you admit that the Apostles were authorized 
tojntroduce Baptism into the Christian Church, or were 
they in error in introducing it as they did?" 

Ans.' "The committee were not appointed for that. It 
is not a fair question," 

Q. "Ts it lawful to call in question either the authority 
of the Apostles, or the doctrines which they taught?" 



148 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

Ans. "Wc were not appointed to answer such ques- 
tions." 

Q. "Can any Society have a valid claim to the chris- 
tian character, that makes it a disownable offence for its 
members to obey the commands, and follov/ the example 
of the Apostles?" 

A long pause was made, but no answer given. 

Robert Ladd being one of the present committee, and 
having been one of the committee of elders that v.^aited 
on me on the subject of baptism: I made the following 
statement as a question : 

"You know that these three charges were shown to the 
company v/hich was Ccdled out of the Monthly Meeting 
in the 1st month; and by them agreed to, as the ground for 
disciplinary proceedings. Did not Dr. Parker,Robert Ladd 
and Samuel Barber, on the preceding evening, in the ca- 
pacity of a committee from the meeting of Ministers and 
Elders, acknowledge to me: 1. That Baptism was prac- 
ticed by the Apostles: 2. That there was no evidence in 
Scripture that it was laid aside: 3. That the subject vv^as 
now open for examination by the Society: 4. That the 
question must be decided by the Scriptures: 5. That if 
Baptism could be proven by the Scripture, the Society of 
Friends ought to adopt it: 6. That acting conscientiously 
as I did, I was not only not to be blamed for being bap- 
tized, but that I would have been to blame if I had not 
been baptized?" This v/as read vv^ith pauses at its sever- 
al divisions, and agreed to by Robert Ladd.* ' ' \ 
Q. "Will you reconcile these concessions with tlic 
steps taken the next day, in declaring it to be a violation 
of a well known principle of the Society, and in bringing 
me under dealings, in order to .my disownment for it?" 
Robert Ladd said he thought "it unreasonable forme 



* Dr. Parker being present the next day, the statement was" read 
to him aiicl agreed to by him. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 149 

to go so contrary to the views of the Society, and yet to 
expect to continue in the Society." 

Q. "Did not John C. Hill in the first visit paid me by 
this committee admit : 1. That Baptism v/as practiced by 
the Apostles and early christians : 2. That there was no 
evidence in Scripture, that the receiving of Baptism was 
ever a cause of Disownment, or even of disunity in the 
Apostolic Church: 3. That he did not believe that the 
receiving of Baptism would do any one any harm: 4. 
And that Ac was sorry the charge was taken up?" 

These sentiments were admitted. 

But the next day he wished^ the statement no. 4. to be 
altered to rea-d as follows : "And that he should not have 
taken that up against me." On writing this down, he 
wished to add the words : "Especially in the form it was 
in." On asking him if he "would m.ake it a matter of 
disownment?" he replied that he "was not prepared to 
say positively." 

Q. "The committee will now- say whether the charge 
rests upon the views of Early Friends — or on the views 
of the Apostles, as exhibited in the doctrines and prpxtices 
of the Church, under their teaching — or in other words, 
on the testimony of the Scripture?" 

James Steer replied, that I ha.d "adopted something 
different from any thing tha,t has everbeen mour Society." 

Considering further questions on this subject unneces- 
sary then,! proceeded to the Report ^vfhioh the committee 
had made to the preceding Monthly Meeting, and to no- 
tice the new charges contained in it. 

Q. "Did the examination of the Cctse, of which you 
speak [in the Report] take place in the visit to which you 
allude? Was the Repository brought before us during 
that visit?" 

Ans. "No; it was not." 

Q. "Where do you find in the Repository, the charge 
which you say I have made against the Meetiiig for Suf- 
ferings ?" 



150 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

The committee referred to the 23rd no. of the Reposi- 
tory; and that part of it in ^Tiich, speaking of presenting 
the Address to the Meeting for Sufferings (See Refutation,) 
I said: "The Address was decidely opposed, and after 
various proceedings and discussions, it was withdrawn.— 
The opposition was to. the Resurrection of the Dead, and 
the Day of Judgment, as set forth in Scripture language;" 
&c. 

To this I repHed : "You If now that I have said in the 
'Refutation,' p. 7, that I neither said nor intended to say, 
in the 23rd no. of the Repository, that the opposition 
which was made to the Address in the Meeting for Suf- 
ferings, was by i\ie meeting — buton the contrary, that the 
Address was withdrawn; and so the meeting did not come 
to a formal decision upon it. Robert Ladd, and Dr Par- 
ker were furnished, each with a copy of the Refutation 
on the evening before the Monthly Meeting in the 1st 
month. Do you consider notwithstanding all this, that 
the opposition which I stated to have been made to the 
Address in the meeting, should be understood as made by 
the meeting?" 

Robert Ladd, (a member of theMeeting for Sufferings,) 
said, "the Address was opposed in the Meeting, by the 
most who spoke upon the subject." 

On my inquiring if he remembered any objection made 
in the meeting, to the Address, on any other subject than 
the Resurrection and Day of Judgment — he replied that 
he did not. 

Q. "Do you want proof that such an opposition as 1 
stated in the 23rd no. of the Repository was made, or do 
you admit that it was made?" 

On this question they would neither admit it, nor refuse 
to admit it, nor allow me to bring in witness to prove it, 
nor refuse to allow me that privilege. I think I never saw 
men more completely confused than they were. And 
they broke up, without agreeing -to any thing — even 
whether we should have another meeting or not. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 151 

1 had given them to understand, that I considered they 
had gone out of their way, to charge me with falsehood — 
that I was resolved not to submit to the cliarge — and they 
must either formally retract it, or have it examined by the 
testimony of witnesses. 

The committee broke up, and John Hall and James Steer 
quitted without ceremony. But Robert Ladd, Evan Hur- 
ford, and John C. Hill remained behind, to tell me that 
i\\ey did admit ihji the opposition • was made, as 1 had 
stated. I told them they were not then in a committee 
capacity, and I insisted on a formal retraction of the 
charge. 

On this they went off, and in about half an hour, James 
Steer called to tell me, that they would be there the next 
morning at 8 o'clock. 



CHAPTER VI 



The next day, that is, 4th mo. 15th, Dr. Parker, Robert 
Ladd, John C. Hill, and James Steer attended. The Dr. 
remarking that he could not stay long, I wished to em- 
brace the opportunity of asking ^msome questions ; which 
were as follows: 

"Did Dr. Parker ever say to me — 1. That the doctrine 
which I held of the Resurrection and Day of Judgment, 
was the doctrine of the Scriptures — 2. That it would 
finally prevail in the Society — -3. But that we must wait 
till some of the old ignorant ones died off?" 

To which he answerecl — 1. I don't know that lever 
did — but I don't doubt that I did ; for I fully believe 
it. 2. I dont doubt that in the least. It does now as far 
as I know. 3. I can't tell. I might have used the ex- 
pression." But on being more closely pressed, hie ad- 
mitted that he did say, that we must wait till some of the 
old ignorant ones died off. 

Q. "Did Joshua Lynch ever say to Dr. Parker, in refer- 
ence to the doctrine of the Resurrection which I preach- 
ed; 'That you elders ought to stop such preaching?' " 

Ans. "I do not remember the particular expression 
which he used, but I remember his expressing dissatisfac- 
tion." 

Q. "Does not Dr. Parker know, that there was an ex- 
tensive dissatisfaction with me, on account of my preach- 
ing that doctrine?" 

Ans^. "If we take the sentiments of people from what 
they say, we must know it. But I believe it was not ex- 
tensive." 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 153 

Q. "Does not Dn Parker know that "William Flaniier 
was opposed to the doctrine?*' I waited sonne time, bat re- 
ceived no answer. On this I remarked to the Dr. that I 
should consider silence, as admitting the affirmative. — 
With this understanding we went on, and I gave the fol- 
lowing names: "William Wood?'' No answer. 'Jacob 
Branson?" 'No answer. "Jacob Holloway?" Ans. "I 
don't know his sentiments." "Joshua Lynch?" He referred 
tohis former answer as to him, "Benjamin Hoyle?"* Ans. 
"I don't know what to say. I don't remember any thing 
particularabouthim." "Jacob Ong!" Ans. "Jacob Ongt 
said something, but I don't know what it was." 'Benja- 
min W. Ladd?" Ans. "I am sure I don't know what to 
say." 

Q. "Dost thou not know, that certain prominent indi- 
viduals, hold that the Day of Judgment, and the great 
Day, is the day of each one's death?" 

Ans. '•! don't remember that any one has made that ob- 
serv-ation to me." 

Q. "Did not William Wood preach that doctrine at 
Short Creek meeting in the presence of several other min- 
isters? And did an overseer of Mountpleasant meeting^ 
speak to thee on that subject?" 

Ans. "Well, I guess he wont preach it any more." 

Q. "Dost thou know that he has abandoned that opin- 
ion?" 

Ans. "I can't tell any thing about it. I have never 
heard any thing of it since." 

The other parts of the committee now put in to tell me, 
that they had agreed to something that would render these 
inquiries unnecessary. This related to the retraction of 
the charge, on which they had broken up in confusion, 
the evening before. It was then proposed that they 



*B. Hoyle objected to the Address in very decided terms. 
f Jacob Ong said he "had attended the meetings of Friends [I 
think 47 years] and never heard such doctrine before! 

u 



U>i 



rK(»«.'Ei;i)j>c4s AM) rKirsciFLE^ or 



should retire to hare a consultiitlon among tbemselveb',— 
At first Dr. Parker refused to go with the other part of 
the committee, remarking that it was something in which 
lie was not concerned. But they would not go without 
hitn: and he consented to go — taking charge of the report 
of the committee. After a short conference they return.- 
ed and agreed to retract the charge, which I •wrote down 
in the following words: 

"The committee refey to the statement made in the 
KefiUation, that I neither said aor intended to say, that 
the opposition to the Address in the Meeting for Suffer- 
ings w^as % the meeting, or in other v/ords, the act of the 
meeting. And on this ground, they agree to refract the 
charge contained in the Report, ttiat I \md falsely charged 
^he Meeting for Buffering?, with being opposed to the 
dortrine of the Resurrection a.n-d Day of Judgment.^' 

This, after som.e conversation was agreed to by the com- 
mittee and myself, as a full retraction of the charge. I 
told them it was material that the reference should be 
made to the Refutation, because a part of the committee 
that presented the Report to the Monthly Meeting, had 
been furnished with the Refutation two months before 
that Report Wcis so presented — -and therefore Avere in 
possession of my explanation. It was material too to re- 
tain the w^ords, ^'neither said nor^''' because 1 did not say in 
the 23rd no. of the Repository that the opposition was 
the act of the meeting. I was decided too that the word 
retract should be in the Avritten statement: because I 
would accept nothing short of a RETRACTION. 

One of their number, J. C. Iliii, had cavilled on the 
words referred to— or several of them — but the others 
agreed that I was right, and the statement which I had 
written for their conclusion was correct. And one or 
two of them used some arguments to convince J. C. Hill 
thf.t he was wrong. 

After some conversation on the n«anner in \>hich the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 155 

Keporc was originaliy prepared , and on the alterations 
which had been rnadc in it, as already noticed — we pro- 
ceeded to the second charge contained in it: that "in 
another [essay] I had charged erroneously the Society with 
!>eing inveterately and extensively cppcsed to evangeli- 
cal doctrine, and the preaching of faith in Christ.'' 

They read parts of the Address in the concluding num- 
ber of the Repository, as the ground of this new charge. 
In that Address I said: ^-The re-action which has taken 
place in the Society, and the fearful relapse into Hicksism, 
has been the work of a wily and unwearied enemy .—^r 
And now one of the most dangerous symptoms of that 
relapse, is a confidence that those who so lately testified 
against that heresy, cannot now fall into it. Facts are 
stubborn thing.?. The most palpable doctrines of Ilicksr- 
ism are now, in print, declared to be the doctrines of 
Friends. And never — no, never — during the bitterest 
time of that controversy, were evangelical doctrines so 
extensively and so inveterately opposed, as they are now. 
I was a witness of the worst of those times. I bore the 
heat and burden of thai day. And 1 kno^v well what it* 
was. And I say again, and am prepared to sustain the 
statement by a reference to facts — that there never was, 
within the range of my acquaintance in the Society, at 
that period — so wide spread — so decided — and so crush- 
ing an opposition to the doctrine of Justification by Faith, 
and other doctrines, inseparably connected with it, as 
there is in the Society at the present time. The unkind- 
ncss, the extensive plan, and the persevercince in it, to 
put down the preaching of Faith in Christ, which is now 
going on among us, never was equalled^ by those we deno- 
minate Hicksites.-' 

When the committee had referred to this passage, as 
the ground on which thei/ had made the charge under con- 
sideration, I appealed to their own knowledge of facts, in 
my own case, as fully justifying the statement I had made. 



156 pRor;i:EDiNcs a\d iniiNCiPLii.H of 

I was pl.iced, however, in a singular position. The com- 
Diiil-ec, as it appeared, yielding Ihemselves as the instru- 
ments to other hands, had taken up a paper which had 
been prepared for them, as their report: and containing a 
S'ji cf ::czv che.rg-s. But in doing this, they had become 
my accusers, while they held the olnce of !^>y Judges.. 
Instead of standing as impartial persons, investigating 
charges brought in an open, and regular way by others, 
and which the accused party had had the opportunity of 
meeting in the previous stages of the business, they occu- 
pied the position of accusers., (directed indeed by others), 
and sitting in judgment on the charges which they them- 
selves had brought against me. In a court of Law, a Judge 
would not sit, in a case in which he had been a party, or 
even an advocate. But in the case before us, the com^ 
mittee were the accusers^ and the judges, in their own pro- 
secution. And having consented to place themselves in 
this position, by the adoption of the Report, it was not to 
be expected that any defence which could be made, would 
be regarded. 

I reminded them of the leading features of the Hicksite 
sepoxation, and of the small number of those called Ortho- 
dox Friends, who v/ere prosecuted for their principles by 
the followers of E. Hicks — and I compared with these, 
the cases which I knew of Evangelical Friends, who had 
been brought into difficulty by the present Conservatives, 
They themselves had knowledge of some of these cases. 
In regard to myself, I had always readily obtained liberty 
to travel as a minister, during the contest with the Hicks^ 
ites; and when travelling, with a few exceptions, I had 
been treated with personal civility. But now I had been 
persecuted for more than four yea,rs, by private defama- 
tion and public hostility? I mentioned cases of personal 
insult, and of official indignity which had been practiced 
upon n)e, from London to Indiana. With all the freedom 
with which I handled the subjects of the Hicksite contrQ-? 



THE SOCIETY OF FIIIENDS. 157 

versy, ibc friends of FJias Ilicks had never brought me 
under dealings. But now I was on the point of being dis- 
owned, bj the Conservatives-, a,nd the committee, and 
every body else acquainted with the subject, know per- 
fectly well, that it was for the doctrines which I held, 
and which they were afraid now openly to call in question. 
And more than all this, the Conservatives had actually 
employed my former professed intimate friends, as the 
active agents for my execution. I told them that thei/, in 
the Hicksite controversy, and in the beginning of these 
difficulties, had professed unity with me. They knew 
the hostility that had been manifested towards me, and 
they knew the grounds of it. And yet they could now 
lend themselves as the instruments for effecting my dis- 
ownment, for the maintenance of principles which they 
themselves had acknowledged to be correct. 

I then mentioned cases of official, and unofficial action 
on sundry friends in England. But the committee refused 
to admit cases in that country, though the article to which 
they referred was v/ritten there, and had direct reference 
to the state of the Society in that country as well as in 
this. I then mentioned the opposition which had been 
made to Jonathan a,nd Hannah C. Backhouse, while on 
their visit in this country— an opposition known to have 
arisen on account of the doctrines which they sometimes 
held — and more especially on account of their efforts to 
promote among our members, the study of the Bible. — 
Knowing the morbid sensibility v/hich existed in the So- 
ciety on this subject, they had adopted a plan of Scripture 
study, which directed the attention almost exclusively to 
the historical parts of the Old Testament. And yet, so 
great was the opposition to this, that this scripture study 
was pronounced by a prominent minister of this Yearly 
Meeting, to be worse than Hicksism. And that minister, 
still standing, not only in unity, but high in esteem here, 
h,ad refused an interview with II. C. B., who requested it 



158 PROCEEDINGS AND TRINC'IPLES OF 

when slic attended the Yearly Meeting at Mountpleasant 
in 1835. 

I referred to the course vrhich had heen pursued to- 
wards Rebecca Updegraff, a minister of Short Creek 
Monthly Meeting, on account of the doctrines which she 
was understood to hold. I mentioned the paper whicli 
B. W. Ladd got up, and had it signed by the ministers 
and elders of the other two monthly meetingSj io stop her 
from performing a religious visit, after she had been libe- 
rated by the Montlily and Quarterly meeting. And I 
asked Dr. Parker, who was well acquainted with this bu- 
siness, If he ever knew such a proceeding in the Society 
before? He replied, it was a new thing to him. 

On the subject of the doctrines involved in these pro^ 
ccedings, I reminded them of what they knezc in regard to 
the opposition to the doctrine of the Resurrection, Justi- 
fication by Faith, Prayer, and the conclusive authority of 
the Scriptures. I read a part of George Jones's Tract, 
called, "x\n Incitation," (to which 1 have already refer- 
red), and ^.sked the committee, if they a-cknowledged this 
to be consistent with the true doctrine of Faith in Christ? 
Dr. Parker answered, that he should not hold up such 
doctrine as this.* 

I mentioned the interview which I had with Charles 
Osborn, William Ilobbs, James White, and John Poole, 
in which a most decided opposition was made, and that 
gratuitously, to the doctrine of J. J. Gurney on Justificar 
lion. I read two letters from Sarah Grubb, (a prominent 
minister near London), and my answers — the prominent 
subject being that of Faith in Christ. 1 related a dis- 
course which I had with a prominent minister in England, 
in which he declared that it was no justification that a 
doctrine was the doctrine of the Scriptures — for the doc- 
trines of the Scriptures were not the doctrines of Qua- 



* And yet this doctrine is openly vindicated in print by one jof the 
committee o^ London Yearly iMeetino-. 



THE SOCIETY CF FKIBISDSi 



159 



kerism-— that Quakerism consisted in a certain modifica- 
tion of the doctrines of religion, a particular view, which 
particular view, George Fox had by revelation and not 
from the Scriptures — that he did not believe a knowledge 
of the doctrines of Christianity was necessary for the 
salvation of Cornelius, or that the faith of Abraham w^as 
faith in Christ. I mentioned anoiher prominent minister 
who declared in my hearing, in a large public meeting, 
That the work of the true ministers in all ages had been, 
to turn people from every external tiling, to Christ Jesus 
revealed in the secret of the soul. I told them of another 
that I had heard, warn Friends not to put too much de- 
pendence in the sacrifice of Christ — and on another occa- 
sion, in a large public meeting, he said, By grace ye are 
saved — and this grace in the hea.rt is the true Saviour — 
there are not two Saviours. And the blood by which we 
are sanctified is the Spirit. I mentioned the prayer which 
I bad heard delivered in a meeting of ministers and el- 
ders—that "that Book called the Bible, might not be 
made an idol." 

I read Thomas Evans's Letter to me, dated 7 mo. 25, 
1835— his Letter to B. W» Ladd, 4 mo. 25, 1835— men- 
tioned B. W. Ladd's declaration to me, before B* Wright 
and Dr. Parker, tliat the writings of our early Friends 
are something that has risen up between us and the Scrip- 
tures, and we must not go beyond them*— I adverted to 
the preaching of certain ministers, who plainly rested Jus- 
tification on works — -^c. And noticed the dissatisfaction 
which was raised by the article called my Vindication* 

In making these statements, I told the committee, that 
if they would not admit them in evidence, I would be at 
the trouble of collecting testimony from London to Indi- 
ana. They told me they did not call them in question. 

On the charge contained in the report, relating to the 
standards of doctrine, I referred them to the article in the 
Friend, upon that subject; and to other things, of a cor- 
respon din g c hf u'ac ter. 



160 niOCEE;)INGS AND PillNUlL'LEi OF 

When I had presented these facts, Dr. Parker confessed 
that I had given more evidence of the opposition to 
Evangelical doctrine and the preaching of Faith in Christ, 
than ever he had thought of before. This v^^as assented 
to hy the other part of the committee. When 1 read the 
note I had made of his concession, he added — that it was 
from a quartci' that he had not thought of. 

They have charged me also with publishing Pamphlets 
calculated to promote disunity and discord in the Society. 
I inquired of them, what were the pamphlets, and what 
the point of doctrine to which they alluded? I told them 
I had published but three — which I named. They said 
they alluded to tWo of them. I remarked that they were 
virtually included in the first charges: and asked why 
should they charge them again? They admitted that the 
charging of them again was redundant. 

The committee having made a sort of general accusa- 
tion, in the conclusion of their Report, 1 asked — "Why 
did you make, in the conclusion, avague, indefinite charge 
against my writings and general conduct, to stand upon 
the records, without specifying what the grounds of dis- 
satisfaction were? What did you mean?" John C. Hill 
replied, "that they meant nothing but the pamphlets." — 
"Then [I said] you have charged them not only twice^ but 
three times." 

' In conclusion, I appealed to the committee, that they 
knew how devotedly I had served the Society, on all oc- 
casions; not regarding the sacrifice of my time, my health, 
my business, and domestic comforts, whenever the Society 
called for my services: that in the late contest, I had 
maintained the authority of the Holy Scriptures, and the 
great doctrines of Christianity, which they contained. — 
And now it was for the same principles that I had beeii 
pursued, with unrelenting persecution for the last four 
years and a half. It had been for the Word of God, and 
the testimony of Jesus Christ. And I reminded them of 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 161 

the agency which tJiey^my former rcpiitcd friend.'^, had 
held, in these proceedings; and endeavoured to make them 
sensihle of the extreme hardness of mj case. I showed 
them how deteniiined, how violent, and how contrary 
to the rales of disciphnc, the measures against me had 
been. And I called their attention to the fact, that they 
had completely failed to support the charges, or any of 
them; and that they were bound, in common uprightness, 
to retract the whole of them. They v/ere not at liberty 
now, to take up the Letter of Resignation, and a.ccc.pt it. 
Having treated that Letter as they had, and determined to 
prosecute me on the charges, for my disowmnent, when 
those charged had frdled, they were bound to acquit mc. 
The Monthly Meeting should now do mc an act of simple 
justice, for injuries which had been inflicted upon me. — 
And the Meeting for SufTerings also, should retract its 
Document. 

According to all the rules of regular and orderly pro- 
ceedings in such cases, when a prosecution cannot be sus- 
tained, the defendant is permitted to stand again, in the 
full enjoyment of the privileges which he would have ei - 
joyed, had the prosecution never taken place. But waiv- 
ing this undeniable right, I told the conimittee, that if 
the meeting would do me the simple act of justice which 
I had mentioned; I v/ould be willing (o meet them in a 
calm and friendly conference, to see if an accomodation 
could not be effected. I stated that I did not wish to leave 
the Society. But if the difficulty Vvcre adjusted, it must 
be on the plain doctrines of the Scriptures — as resting 
on the authority of God himself; without admitting an ap- 
peal to any other authority whatever. 

They heard me with patience. They asked for no ad- 
ditional evidence in support of the defence J had made. 
They had nothing to say in support of the charges. But 
seemed heartily glad that the interview was coming to a 
conclusion. 

V 



16:1 



rilUCEEDIKGS AJN'D l'rvIIS-Cirl.E.S OF 



l^hey made a Report to the Montltlj MeeiiDg, with 
which 1 have not been furnished: but v/hich was designed 
to result in my disownment. Thej proposed however 
that the charge, wliich thej had retracted^ .should be drop"^ 
ped — not on the grounds to which they had explicitly con-^ 
ceded, but, as they said, because I had denied intending 
to charge the Meeting for Sufferings. In this proceeding: 
there was a direct breach of faith. But notwithstanding 
alTthisyit was put into the paper of disownment. 

On receiving the Report af the Committee, the m'eet^- 
ing concluded that I ought tof be disowned, and a com- 
irtfttee Of three persons was appointed to inform me ©^ 
this conclusion, and to prepare the document for the pur- 
posci These were Dr. Parker, James Kinsey, and Elisha, 
Bracken.— The two first declined seeing me on the sub- 
ject, and sent Elisha Bracken, who, to do him justice, was 
mof e candid and reasonable in his remarks, than some of 
his predecessors had been. When he informed me that he 
was directed to let me know the judgment o-f the meeting^ 
in my case; I asked him, on what charges had the meet- 
ing determined to disown me? He replied that he could 
hat tely I then gave him a brief history of the inter- 
views I had had vrith the committee — with which he 
seemed much surprised — and said they had not represent- 
ed the case in that Fight to the meetings. I told him that 
I thought it was great injustice, both to me and to the 
meeting, for the reports to have been given as they had 
l>een. 

1 touched briefly on the several charges which had been 
made against me, and the results of the investigation of 
them. When I came to that of Baptism, I reminded him 
that the Apostles undoubtedly commanded it — that it was 
the practice of the Church, and never laid aside in the 
Apostolic f^gc. And then I inquired — "Suppose it were 
possible, to transfer the Apostle Paul into the Society af 
Fricndy, just as he was in his life time, wouhl you not dis^ 



THE SOCIETY or FRIENDS. 163 

■own AiV/i, on the ground you have taken with me?" He 
paused awhile, and then replied, that he supposed they 
would ! ! ! 

The following is a copy of the Paper of Disownment: 

"Elisha Bates has written and published, contrary to 
discipline, Sundry articles or pamphlets relating to our 
religious principles and testimonies calculated to excite 
-disunity and discord and containing unfounded charges 
against the meeting for Sufferings and our religious So- 
ciety in matters of faith and doctrine alledging errouni- 
ously that our Society is inveterately and extensively op- 
posed to evangelical doctrines and to the preaching faith 
in christ and says the society is holding up their own writ* 
ings as standards of doctrine more immediately binding 
on us than the scriptures, he has insidiously attacked the 
x:hTistain character and religious writings of George Fox, 
he has also departed from our chri^tain belief of the odq 
icssential and saveing baptism that of the holy Spirit by 
subnaitting to the cerremony and use of water, in a com- 
munication which he forwarded to this Meeting in th 2nd 
month last tendering the resig^nation of his ri^ht of mem- 
bership, he further evinces that he is not in unity with 
us and haveing been treated with, endeavours to Justify 
him self in the course he has pursued against the society 
and manyfesting no disposition to condemn his deviation 
we there fore testify against his said conduct and disovy-n 
him from being a member of our religious society, never- 
theless we sinceriy desire he may be favoured with a true 
Bence of his present condition and become prepared to 
condemn his late course of procedings to the Satisfaction 
of friends and to the peace of his own mind 

Signed in and by direction of Short Creek Monthly 
Meeting held 23rd, day of 5th month 1837 

NATHAN HALL c/A-" 

From this document it will appear, that the three ori- 
f iual charges are, in substance, retained— though, in sojtnQ 



1G4 PllOCEEDINGS AND PRINCirLES OF 

degree, modified in form — and that the matters contained 
in the Report, are also inchided, even that which t*ie com- 
mittee formally agreed to rdract. The Society had de- 
termined on the grounds of its prosecution, and was not 
to be turned from them. It was to no purpose to show 
to their appointed agents that a charge vfas not tnie^ or 
that another was not actionable by the Discipline, or that 
one was absurd.) another a vindication of Blasphemy, and 
a third an open attack upon the Apostles, and on the 
whole Christian Church. Like a wheel in a deep rut, 
they could not turn on either hand, but must be dragged 
on, or stick fast. 

The whole proceeding was commenced contrary to the 
provisions of tlie Discipline. 

The first charge was ridiculous in the extreme — as it 
ostensibly made the oifcnce to consist in publishing the 
Address, without the revision of the Meeting for Suffer- 
ings — when I was driven to the necessity of publishing 
it, in my own defence, against the Meeting for Sufferings. 
It is the more absurd, inasmuch a,s it convicts the Meeting 
for Sufferings of having made a statement, utterly at vari^ 
ance with the facts of the case. 

The second charge, Vvdthout discipline — makes it a dis- 
own able offence to call in question the soundness of G, 
Fox's religious writings. This is virtua,lly claiming infal- 
libility for him — and establishing a precedent, that forever 
seals the lips of the members of the Society, in regard to 
whatever G. F. srdd or did. Those who are in power, or 
in favour with those who arc, may feel themselves secure 
from danger. But the precedent is settled, in making it a 
disovrnablc offence to call in question the soundness of G. 
F.'s religious v>^ri tings: and any man, liereafter, may be 
taken up and disowned, for objecting to any thing con^ 
taincd in G. F.'s religious writings. But while this ground 
is taken, the Scriptures are called, in the writings of Early 
Friends, a corrupt stream^ a nose of zvax<f a Lesbian Rnle^ 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 165 

&c. — and now, the popular ministers are publicly de- 
claring, that the Apostles did not understand their com- 
mission,* &c. But the application of this precedent, not 
only makes it disownable to call in question the published^ 
but unpublished writings of G. F.: and those which, taken 
in the plain and literal meaning of the words employed, 
contain blasphemy. The charge vras not for giving the 
writings a construction^ for they were given as the writers 
had left them, and allowed to speak for themselves. It 
was not therefore a forced construction^ that I called in 
question, but the letters themselves, taken in the common 
meaning of the terms employed by the vrriters. So then, 
if G. Fox's writings contain the grossest Blasphemy, it is 
disownable to call it in question — the very existence of 
the Society depends on maintaining it. The com- 
mittee appointed to treat with me, could not deny that 
the Letters in question did contain Blasphemy, 

The third charge arrays the vSociety against the Apos- 
tles and the wdiole Christian Church. Instead of insist- 
ing, as some of the Early Friends did, that Baptism had 
ceased in point of obligation, and that the disuse was not 
to be condemned^ by those who still practiced it — they 
come out now, in making it penal, and carry back the 
censure for the use of it, to the Apostles themselves. I 
ask, has any Society using the christian name, ever taken 
such high, presumptuous ground? 

There is no possibility of making a valid defence for 
the disuse of Baptism, but by proving that it was not in- 
cluded or intended, in the commission given by Christ to 
his disciples, after his Resurrection. And this cannot be 
done, but by proving that the apostles did not understand 
the commission. For the manner in which they carried 
that commission into practice is undeniable. If, then, 
the Lord Jesus did not intend Baptism in the common ac- 



* This was said by J. Hubbard, in tlie (Quarterly Meeting at 
Moiintpleasant, in the 5 mo. 1837. 



166 PROCEEDINGS AND FRINCIPLES OF 

ceptation of tlic word, tlie apostles were mistaken: for 
thej caused it to be administered in that sense; and com- 
manded it, as distinctly ia the name of Jesus Christy as they 
did Repentance, Had they his authority for preaching 
Repentance, as they taught it? No one will deny this. 
Had they his authority [qy commanding the converts to be 
baptized, as they did command iV. If they had, all dispu- 
tation on the subject is at an end. If not, the apostles 
were in a serious error. For they did not introduce Bap- 
tism as an indiiferent tiling — a mere condescension to the 
prejudices of the new converts, — no — they commanded 
it — Repent and be Baptized every one of you^ in the name 
OF Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins ^ and ye shali 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. — And they that gladly 
Q'cceived Ms word were baptized,'^'' No man in his sober 
senses, can deny that the apostles introduced it, and not 
the coTiveriis — that it was done with apostolical authority, 
and not as an indifferent thing — that it was rested on the 
authority of Jesus Christ, as fully as the command to 
repentance was. Were the apostles mistaken^ or not?— 
Certainly they could not be in error-— not only from the 
opportunity they had of knowing from Christ hnuself, 
(vvhat was the meaning of the term — but because they 
were, on the Day of Pentecost, filled with the Holy 
Ohost — and spake as the Spirit gave them utterance. To 
charge them with error^ in what they then said and did, 
is not merely to impeach the apostles, and whole body of 
the church then assembled, but to charge the Holy Ghost 
with error: for agreeably to Christ's own words, it was 
not they that spoke, but the Spirit of God that spoke iii 
them. 

But Tv'hile the Lord Jesus commanded Baptism, with- 
out any thing to turn it from its simple and obvious mean- 
ing — while the Apostles, under the extraordinary influence 
and direction of the Spirit, commanded it, in that sense, 
and claimed t^ae authority of Christ for doing so— while the 



Tin: souiiTfY or fiiium)?. IG7 

believers, "every one," of them received it on that ground, 
and the practice, prevaiHng universally in the Church was 
continued through the Apostolic age, and descended, vv^ith 
undiminishing force, to the immediate successors of the 
Apostles — the Friends have made it a cause of disown 
ment from the Society. Where now is their claim to 
Primitive Christianity Revived? So far from its being Re- 
vived^ they inflict upon those who dare to rtxi-oe it, the 
highest penalty which is known to the Discipline. 

The charges contained in the Report- — made out by 
someone behind tlie screen; v»^ere taken up altogeth- 
er out of order, in the first place. One of them was re- 
tained in direct .violation of a written agreement; I suc- 
cessfully defended myself on every point — and the com- 
mittee, beaten on their own grounds, were unable even to 
defend themselves, for having taken up such accusations! 
They had all the evidence that reasonable men could de- 
sire, to prove that I had ample grounds for all that I had 
said, to which the objections were made. 

But they saw that if this prosecution failed, I should 
stand once more at liberty in the Society. And on what 
other grounds could they attempt to disown me? It was 
plain that if these charges would not do, they must come 
at last, to the great doctrines on which the dissatisfaction 
begun, aad which were at the bottom, through all. But 
they dared not to meet me upon these. On the contrary, 
the most unworthy methods were practiced, to induce an 
opinion that they never were dissatisfied with me upon 
those points. Even on the subject of the Resurrection, 
on which they had blown the Society into a flame, they 
have tried to make it appear that they never denied the 
doctrine which 1 held. The document of the Meeting for 
Sufferings, carries this complexion on the face of it. 

They knew that they were defeated in this attack. But 
they knew also, that they would fare no better in any oth- 
er they could contrive. And as they had determined to 



168 PKOCliEDIIS'GS AND rillNClPlyES OF 

DisoiDu mc at all events — they concladed it would be as 
well to do it after one defeat, as after teo, or a; still larger 
number. 

But if they dropped the present prosecution, two in- 
ferences must follow — First, That George^Fox and his 
friends must be admitted to be wrong, and thus the very 
Foundation of the Society would be loosened. Second, 
That the members were at liberty to follow the Apostles^ 
where the Early Friends differed from them in doctrine 
and practice. This would, at once, be taking the Key 
Stone out of the Arch of their Peculiarities \ and it would 
not require the gift of Prophcy to foretel the conse- 
quence. 

Let the revelations of George Fox and his Friends be 
called in question with impunity, and the foundation of 
the Society^ will begin to give way^ — hence the official acts 
of the Society represent the callingof the old Letters in 
question, as "an insiduous atiemptio destroy the Society." 
Let Baptism and the Lord's Supper be resumed, and a 
prominent part of the superstructure will already be in 
ruins. And therefore, though they had no Discipline in 
cither case, though they were, or would be, completely dis- 
graced before the Christian world — yet rather than incur 
the risk of consequences, they determined to persevere. 

But I ask, will not these things tend to open tbe eyes of 
the better part of the Society? Will they consent to be 
blinded by such proceedings? They must see that there 
lias been, on the part of the ruling members, a departure 
from Discipline, and from all fair dealings. They must 
see that I have been injured — persecuted — defamed, and 
finally disowned, while I was able to defend myself on 
every point, though they had appointed a committee of 
seven to treat with me. They must admit, also, that I 
have truth and sound doctrine on my side. Wherever 
matters of fact have been brought into discussion, I have 
triumphantly refuted every charge that has been made 



illE SOCIETY OF rRIJG:\l>3. 169 

t)ii my veracity. And on the point of doctrine, for which 
I have been censured, even the committee themselves have 
admitted, that the censure applies as fully to the Apostles 
themselves as to me. How then can any one evade the 
conclusion, that the Society has unchristianized itself — and 
that Quakerism and Primitive Christianity, are utterly at 
variance. For surely, to use an old adage^ the rule must 
work both ways. If Quakers disown Christianity, Chris- 
tians must disown Quakerism. If Quakerism will disown 
a nfian for conforming to the doctrines and exam.ples of 
the Apostles and early Christians — Christianity must re- 
ject the peculiar views of Qucikerism — -from which such 
results have proceeded. 

It has been my wish, that the feeling excited among the 
tnembers of the Society, by these transactions, may not 
be of a personal or party character. It is not against 
persons, in this view, that I wish to raise objections- — but 
against the principles and their natural fruits, which are 
found among the Friends, that I have endeavoured to give 
a faithful warning. I have not endeavoured to form a 
|>arty around myself, but to point them to Christ Jesus, 
the Holy Head of the Church; and to that blessed order, 
which he established in his own house. 

If the Friends are wise, they v»dli be wise to themselves, 
and if they scorn, they alone shall bear it. it is for their 
benefit, not mine, that 1 have set before them the corrup- 
tions, both in principle and practice, which are found in 
the body of which they are members, and for the official 
acts of which, they must be responsible, in some degree, 
so long as they are thus identified with it. 

I am quite aware that many, very many of the mem- 
bers of the Society, most heartily disapprove the measures 
which have recently been pursued by the Conservatives — 
and know and lament the maintenance of the principles 
from which those measures have arisen. And while they 
occupy this ground, without the least compromise, or con- 
W 



170 



'ROCEEDINGS AND miiXCirLES OP 



ccalmeiit of their real sentiments, I can most tenderly 
sjn)pathise tvith them. But they must bear two things in 
remembrance. That the true Christian can make no 
compromise with that which is evil. He should neither 
unite with it, nor^eem to unite. And farther: That there 
is a limit, beyond which, connection with ah unsound body 
becomes criminal and highly dangerous. "Come out of 
her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and 
that ye receive not of her plagiiesi" 

When any Associate Body, by its official acts, becomes 
decidedly unsound, and plainly, and openly opposed td 
Christianity, as exhibited in the doctrines and practices 
of the Apostles, connection with that body becomes ex-^ 
tremel j dangerous, if not directly sinful. 

I have known some individuals, who in the commence- 
ment o{ these difficulties, saw that the predominating 
party were wrong. But observing the strong current 
which was running in that direction, concluded to go a 
little with that current, that they might not entirely lose 
their irifluence, and the opportunity of doing good. But 
in a very short time they Were going thoroughly with the 
ruling party, and became the active agents of carrying 
their plans into execution. People must not attempt to 
do£Vil that good may come. They must not give up the 
cause of Christ, nor seem to do it, in order that by some 
management, they may, either underhandedly, or at some 
future time, promote it more successfully. 
. I know, that the sound members of the Society are so 
much in the minority^ and have so little influence, that 
they cannot arrest the present course of proceedingSi 
But they certainly could bear an open testimony against 
it. They may not be able to prevent the Society from 
taking, as it has done, a position totally irreconcileable to 
the doctrine and practice of the Apostles — but they can 
search the Scriptures, and give practical evidence of their 
sense of the obligation of the doctrines therein contained* 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 171 

They may possibly think, it is in vain for them to contend 
against the general current. But they ought to be faithful 
in their own practice. But this is not all. For as the 
candle is not lighted to be put under the Bed or the Bush- 
el — neither ease nor advantage should induce them to 
relinquish the full amount of influence which they might 
be able to exert, for the spreading of the Kingdom of the 
Redeemer, and the gathering of souls to him. 

The love of ease, and the attempt to establish peace, 
upon a false and rotten foundation, never can lead to any 
happy results. We cannot suppose that God will always 
suffer corruption to be covered up, in the bosom of a high- 
ly professing Society. And how^ever painful the opera- 
tion may be, the Society must prepare to have its ulcers 
probed to the bottom. Nor should they think it unne- 
cessary, if the knife should be applied, to open some of 
those more hidden receptacles, in which offensive matter 
has long lain, pent up, and concealed from superficial ob- 
servation. As in the human, so in the social system — dis- 
ease must prey upon the very vitals, so long as corruption 
lies any where concealed in it. It must all be discharged, 
before there can be any radical cure. 

For the Society^ in its official character, I confess I have 
no hopes of a reformation. I think its character is fixed, 
and will go with it to the grave. How long its existence 
may be protracted, is not lor me to pretend to determine. 
But all who are acquainted with it, know perfectly well 
that it is on the decline. And causes for that decline are 
constantly increasing. However the older members may 
regret to let go their hold on the Society o{ which they 
are members — with education and intelligence increas- 
ing among the young people— with the knowledge which 
they and the christian public will have of the position 
which the body has taken — we cannot expect that the 
next generation will feel and act as their fathers have 
4ooe. 



n*i prvQCEEDIXfjc; ANH PRINCIPLES OF 

The rosulis of its History show to evcrj dispassionate 
person, that the Society of Friends is not designed by the 
- Great Ruler of the Universe, to be the nucleus, on which 
the Church General is to be formed. Taking the num- 
bers, which are pretty clearly ascertained to have been 
included in the Society in the year 1660, and the natural 
increase of population would amount to tsn times the pre- 
sent number, both of Orthodox and Hicksites. Taking, 
then, the whole amount of prosolytes into the account^ 
the Society has not retained more than one tenth of its 
own children, during the last 175 years. How then 
should it gather other churches into it? And much less 
should it evangelize ihi^ world. 

But it has heretofore been understood, that while the 
labours of missionaries sent out by other societies, have 
been abundantly blessed— Friends cotdd not send raission- 
aries. Their peculiar views forbid it. And though the 
Yearly Meeting of London has, in some sort, encouraged 
missionary visits, at great expense, yet compared with the 
success of others, it has resulted in a failure. But this is 
not all. For with all their zeai for meliorating the condi-. 
tion of the African Descendants, (which has been lauda- 
ble), and with the advantage of the opportunity of instil- 
ling their principles into the minds of the coloured people 
under their care — kw^ very fev/, have ever been induced 
to jain the Society. I could not count up one dozen, of 
all that have ever become members. The case of the 
Indians, is not less striking than that of the African de- 
scendants. No people have stood higher in the estima- 
tion of the Aborigines of this country than the Friends. 
But with this advantage of injluence, and wath an almost 
constant intercourse wath them for the last 150 years, and 
several stations maintained among them at the expense of 
many thousands of dollars, there never has, so far as my 
information has gone, been made one proselyte to the Sor 
ciety of Friends: while the labours of other societies 



THE BOCIETY OF TRIEXDS. 173 

hcive been blessed, in bringing many of these cliildren of 
the wilderness, to the Faith once delivered to the saints. 

These facts must be admiited to speak a very solemn 
language. Ta,ken in connection with the proceedings 
and principles examined in this volume, they show that 
there is a deeply seated malady in the body — that the 
seeds of this disease were sown in its very formation, and 
the fruits have been almost continually developing them- 
selves. Sentiments of the m^ost objectionable character, 
are found not only in the unpublished writings of the 
Early Friends— ^disclosing what v/ere their real modes of 
thinking — but also in their printed vrorks. The extrav- 
agances of the followers of Ja.mes Naylor, and we may 
now class the followers of George Fox with them., show 
the pernicious tendency of the erroneous views they en- 
tertained of divine revelation, and of the indwelling of 
Christ in man. The views of Wilkinson and Story, in 
opposing the establishment of any system of Church 
Government, on the plea of the sufficiency of the guidance 
of the Light within, was but the carrying out of the ori- 
ginal principles of George Fox and his coadjutors. The 
heresy of Hannah Barnard, and that outbreaking of Uni- 
tarianism, (to use no stronger term), which swept over 
the Society in Ireland, like a deluge, about the beginning 
of the present century, were defended by the writings of 
the Early Friends, and especially by Penn's Sandy Foun^ 
dation Shaken. These same writings have been fruitful 
of mischief down to the present day — and with a know- 
ledge not only of the General history of the Society, but 
of many of the particular passages in the writings of our 
Predecessors, which have stumbled the minds of hun- 
dreds and thousa^nds of the members of the Society — the 
Yearly Meeting of London has earnestly recommended 
those writings, without any exception or any caution; 
and the Meeting for Sufferings of Ohio has declared the 
Poctrinal Treatises in which all those unsound passages 



174 PROCEEDmOS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

are contained, to be in strict accordance with the Holy 
Scriptures, and to give a clear view of the true Christian 
divinity ! 

In the mean time, God, in his over-ruling Providcncey 
is shaking the Society from the centre to the circumfer- 
ence. The corruptions which have been covered up in 
it so long, are opening out, the dangerous delusionswhich 
possessed the very Founders of it, are coming to light — 
the high claims which have long been made to superiority 
over every other denomination of Christians, are sinking 
before the discovery of facts: and the unworthy conduct 
of those who now direct the affairs of the Society, gives 
further evidence of the badness of that system from which 
it proceeds, and which it is designed to uphold. 



CHAPTER VIII 



As the "Appeal holds a prominent place among the 
charges on which I have been disowned, so likewise it 
holds a prominent place in the feelings of the Conserva- 
tive Friends. The disclosure of the papers of George 
Fox has filled them with indignation ; while many sound 
friends, feel an inexpressible mortification, in deriving 
their religious views from a ma,n who was evidently the 
subject of a most extraordinary delusion. As soon as the 
Appeal reached the hands of the conservatives at Mount- 
pleasant, it was made the foundation of a prosecution, in 
order for my disownment, for attempting, as they said, to 
destroy the Society and G. Fox's Christian character, and 
religious reputation, by calling in question the soundness 
of his religious writings. 

But it was not enough, in their estimation, to make it a 
matter of disownment, to call in question any thing that 
G. F. said or did. Many persons confidently denied the 
genuineness of the papers published in the Appeal. It was 
represented as a base forgery, and as such demanding 
the reprobation of all respectable people. Others, who 
could not be persuaded that the papers were a forgery, 
severely censured the exposure of them, while in doing so, 
they fully admitted the disgrace that was attached to 
George Fox and his most intimate friends — and to their 
successors in religious profession. x\nd all the blame 
which they bestowed upon me, for the disclosure of real 
facts, passed over with increased weight, to G. F. and 
Early and modern Friends. 



176 rilOCEEDi.\C;S AKD PIUNCli'LES OF 

This perplexing and, to tiie Friends, vexatious business, 
could not be suiTered to remain, without further effort to 
counteract the effects of the Appeal. 

Soon after it made its appea-rance, the Meeting for Suf- 
ferings in London, issued an Epistle, eulogizing the Earlj 
Friends, but saying nothing of the xlppeal. In the latter 
part oftheSrd month, George Richardson, one of the Con- 
servatives in England, a minister, and one of the noted com- 
mittee of the Yearly Meeting, in the case of Isaac Crewd- 
son, wrote a pamphlet, entitled "Brief Remarks on some 
of the charges recently made against the Early Writers 
of the Society of Friends." 

Subsequent to this, as it would seem, another work has 
been given to the public, by Samuel Tuke, a minister, a 
member of the aforesaid committee, and Clerk of the 
Yearly Meeting in London. This work is entitled "Plea 
on behalf of George Fox and the Early Friends." 

George Richardson, and Samuel Tuke, however have 
hot exactly taken either of the grounds to which I have 
alluded in the beginning of this chaper; and in fact have 
relieved me of the censure cast upon me by all three of 
these parties. They have acknowledged the objectiona- 
ble character of the language used in the letters; and 
therefore they have virtually condemned the Society in 
prosecuting me for calling the writings in question. They 
have FULLY admitted the genuineness oi l\ie papers; and 
thereby they have silenced forever the imputation of for- 
gery. They have turned the force of their talents against 
me, for the representation which they say I have made of 
the views of G. Fox and his friends, and thereby they 
have virtually released me from all blame which had been 
cast upon me, for suffering the papers to speak for them- 
selves. In fact, these friends have too much discernment 
not to see, that no defence whatever could be made for 
George Fox and his friends, on the ground that their let- 
ters, taken by themselves, and speaking for themselves, 



tiiii SOCIETY OF FIIIENDS. 177 

were scandalous. And yet they have involved them- 
selves, ill no small degree of contradiction and absurdity. 

Let the reader then bear in remembrance that the gen- 
liineness of the papers in question, is fully admitted. 

Before descending to the arguments used by these wri* 
ters, in defence of G. Fox, I w'ui make one remark which 
I think of importance. Neither of them has done me 
justice in stating the plainly declared object of the Ap- 
peal. And this is the more to be complained of, as that 
object is spread broadly on its pages, in the commence^ 
ment, and is again distinctly referred to in the conclu- 
sion. To state the object unfairij^, is to place the whole 
5?<iycc/, in an unfiiir point of view. Samuel Tuke begins 
his Plea with the following paragraph: "The following 
pages are devoted to the consideration of two charges af- 
fecting the character of the Society of Friends, the first 
being against George Fox, viz: Hhat he assumed io him- 
self altribuies rvhich belong only to the Divine Being r — the 
second against the Early Friends, viz: Hhat they ascribed 
such attributes to him.' " Plea p. 1. 

To enable the reader to judge of the fairness or un- 
fairness of this representation, I will refer to the Appeal; 
and more especially to the following passages. 

"I ctsk then, where are we to find Primitive Christiani- 
ty clearly and authoritatively set forth? in the Holy Scrip- 
tares, or in our own writings? If we take the Holy Scrip- 
tures, some parts of our own writings must be given up. 
If, on the other hand, we take our own writings, some 
parts of the Scriptures will be virtually set aside. Should 
this preference, to our own writings be so enforced upon 
our members, by official acts, as to subject those to censure 
who do conform to the Scriptures, but, who, in so doing 
deviate from some sentiments expressed in our own writ- 
ings, then, plainly, Quakerism will be set up in opposition 
to Christianity, and the language and authority of early 
Friends he opposed to the language and authority oi Jesus 
X 



f78 PKCyCEEDINGS AND PRINCIFLES Ot 

Christ* I ask you, my friends, are you prepared to' tak(^ 
this ground?" 

'•The controversy now existing in the Society arisen- 
from a difference on the fmidamentai doctrines of reHgiont; 
but it is not confined to those finidamental doctrines. On- 
one sid^e, the Holy Scriptarcs are taken a-s containing 
the whole body of Christian doctrine as God himself was 
pleased to give it. On the other hand, it. is insisted, that 
owr writings contain the form of doctrine which is binding 
upon us-. However speciously some may endeavour to- 
conceal the fact, it cannot be denied that a lair examina- 
tion of our own writings by the standard of Scripture m 
not allowed; but, on the contrary, we are enjoined to re- 
ceive the Scriptures as they are interpreted by our early 
Friends." 

"Now, besides the fearful discredit which is thus cast 
upon the V/ord o£ God, the question arises, — Are our owii 
writings in full and perfect agreement with the Holy 
Scritures? This, of necessity, brings us to an examina- 
tion. To make this examination fairly, we niust not en^ 
tertain the belief that our early Friends were infallibly 
led by the Holy Spirit. Their inspiration was so con- 
fidently asserted by some of them, and has been so often 
repeated and admitted, that even the intimation that this 
Was not the case, is regarded by many as proof positive j 
that the individual who entertains doubts on this subject 
is himself under a delusion." 

"Considering the important bearing, of these things on 
individuals, and on the very truth of the Gospel itself, 
how, I ask, are they to be met? The privileges of the 
members of this society — the prosperity of the bodj'— the 
salvation of souls, and the honour of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, are all immediately concerned. To say in gene- 
ral terms, tliat our early Friends were mistaken in some 
things, in which they supposed they were led by immedi- 
ate revelation, is regarded at once as evidence, that those 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 179 

mh& say go are in error. This, if it related only to per- 
•sonal reputation, might be endured. But when it bears 
-directly on things which relate to life and salvation, it be- 
<:omes a serious question, how far we shall refrain from 
stating facts, t^ prove, not only that our early Friends 
were fallible, but that, o^i some important points, they real- 
ly were mistaken, when they c-onfidently professed, that 
they were taught by immediate revelatioji. The great 
mass of their writings which are still extant affords many 
examples of the kind to which I have alluded. Should 
the position be denied, this whole mass of writings lies 
©pen before us, for the -coUeetion of proof. At present I 
shall confine myself to very narrow limits, and take only 
a few examples which directly, or indirectly relate to 
Oeorge Fox. I do this because he was theFounder of the 
:8ociety, and as such, demands the first place of consiiiera- 
tion among our early Friends." 

''In venturing to take n<5tice of tl>e opinions and con- 
duct of that very extraordinary man, I do sincorel}^ desire 
not to place his character in any improper point of view; 
nor to withhold from him any of those charitable and 
reasonable allowances which can properly be claimed for 
him. His sincerity and zeoi will not be called in question. 
Of these qualities, his deep sufferings, and his unweared 
exertions, are sufficient proofs." — Appeal, pp, 5, 6. 

"Let the reader, however, reflect for a moment on the 
depth and long continuance of his distress, and then say, 
if it was not sufficient in ordinary cases, to have affected 
the powers of Judgment, at least on some particular 
points? We know that it is not at all uncommon for what 
is called rehgious melancholy, or gloomy and distressing 
views of religious subjects long continued, to produce such 
an effect." — ih, p. 7. 

"This appears to have been in the year 1648, when 
George Fox was twenty-four years of age. Let the read- 
er reflect for a moment on the prominent oircumstances 



ISO PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIl'LES OF 

of the case, and say if there is not some special allowance 
to be made. Here was a ?/owM, with so little education 
that he could scarcely write legibly— of a peculiar turn of 
iTiind — who had passed a number of years in the deepest 
distress, from his peculiar views of rehgioas subjects— who 
at length, was carried along by an idea of extraordinary 
revelations made immediately to himself, and with an ap- 
parent defect of judgment on that particular subject. It is 
evident that his imagination was powerlully . excited, in 
supposing that he had "come up in spirit through thejlam^ 
ing sword into the Paradise of God*'''* — -ih.p. 8. 

"That this was the result of an excited imagination^ with 
a want oi judgment on the subject of immediate revelation^ I 
should think very iew^^ at this day, will venture to deny. — 
I sincerely desire that every allov/ance which the circum- 
stances of the case will admit may be made; but one thing 
is of too serious importance to be passed over, and that 
is — the danger of holding the idea of having revelations 
which are not to be 'subjected to the test of the Scrip- 
tures.' " — ib, 

"I could bring forv/ard abundance of evidence, to prove 
that claims to revelation, and to the power of God, were 
made, both by George Fox himself and by his friends, 
which must be abandoned on calm and dispassionate ex- 
amination. Those papers which I have now produced, 
and others in existence, furnish undeniable proof, that 
there was the assumption by him, and the ascription to> 
him, of attributes -which belong only to the Divine Being, — 
From them it is apparent, that we have been greatly mis- 
taken in the estimate which we have made of the extra- 
ordinary c/earwe^s of the views of our early Friends; and 
that the danger is extreme in suffering the views of such 
men to alter or pervert any of the doctrines of religion, a-s 
taught in the Bible."— 25. p. 21. 

"It is not my intention, at the present time, to follow 
out the inquiry respecting the frailty and fallibility of 



THE SOCIETY OF TRIENDS. ' 181 

George Fox a,nd his Friends. Enougli has been adduced 
to show tliat they were not only fallible hut did /a//, in some 
cases, Yv'hen they made- the highest professions of divine 
guida,nce. The existing circumstances of the Society not 
only call for these facts to be brought to light, as ex- 
amples of warning to show the ciwful danger of slighting 
in any degree the recorded vvill of God, and of mistaking 
the Yf orkintrs of our ov/n imasrinations for immediate re- 
velation; but also to prove, by undeniable evidence, that 
we tire 7iot authorised to veceive the views of George Fox 
as infallible, any more, than those of other fallible men.^ — 
1 ask, then, will you still receive his views implicitly as the 
result of revelation, and be actually prevented, thereby, 
fi°©m coming directly to the Holy Scriptures, in all mat- 
ters of faith and practice?" — ib, p, 22. , 

These copious extracts, and others which might be 
quoted, show the object of the Appeal. It was plainly to 
callback the Friends to the Scriptures, as the only di- 
vinely authorized record of the Willof God, in matters 
of Faith a,nd Practice — and to show that George Fox and 
his friends v.^ere not only fallible^ but that they did fail, in 
some cases, when they ma,de the highest professions of di- 
vine guida^nce — and that we vx'ere not wa^rranted to "re- 
cieve his views implicitly, as the result of revelation, and 
be actually prevented by them, from coming directly to 
the Holy Scriptures, in matters of faith and practice." 

SarnuelTuke is admitted on all hands to be amanofmorc 
than ordinary talents, and high standing in. the Society. 
But how did it happen, that such a naan should overlook 
the c?c5z_g7i ofthe Appeal as he has done? I am far from 
imputing miworthy motives to him. For though I think 
his representation is unfair, I do not mean to charge him 
with intentional unfairness, I think, with allhis sagacity, 
he could see no other v/ay of defending G eorge Fox and 
Early Friends, with any sort of plausibility, than that 
which he took. And I give him full credit, as an advocate. 



182 rKOC'EEDTXCS ANP PRTj.^ClPLES OF 

for having mnde tlie most specious Plea that could have 
been made. 

But it would have lost much of its plausibility if it had 
shown th.e declared object of the Appeal t<3 be, to present 
conclusive evidence, that G. F* and the Friends alluded 
to, were mista/cen in certain specific cases distinctly 
brought into notice. I grant that the exhibition of those 
rases, results in the CGnckision that G. F. and the other 
persons whose letters are given in the Appeal, judging 
from what they said^did, on the one hand claim, and on 
the other hand grant, to G. F. titles and attributes which 
belong to no human, being. But this is the effect of theif 
own papers, rather than the object' which. I had in view.-^ 
Had I taken a mild or unimportant case, to show th'at 
they were mistaken^ it would have produced no other ef- 
fect on the Friends, than to have increased their confi- 
dence in G. F. from the supposed impotence of all attempts 
to call his views in question. It was necessary that 
strong cases should be taken: which I hoped would be 
conclusive with all persons of impartiality. But in doing 
this, the nature of the mistake could not he concealed. And 
it would have been laying myself open to a most serious 
imputation, from all intelligeni: christians, if I had not 
shown that I both understood the common meaning of such 
language as was used by G. F. and his Friends, and most 
heartily reprobated its application to him, or to any other 
man- ' 

1 have proven mistakes in particular cases. And the 
Society, and the christian pu])lic must be aware of the 
direction taken by these mistakes. 

Alarmed at the obvious bearing of the language used 
by G. Fox and others, the author of the Plea set himself 
to work, to prove that they did not mean what they said. 
Now, without at all admitting that he has succeeded in 
maintaining his position, let us, for a moment, grant that 
he has proven that they did not mean, what the terms 



fJIE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 



183 



they used, would in their common acceptation convej^ 
' Does not every man of camman sense perceive that he 
has estabhshed, hy another process, the very thing that I 
intended to prove, by pubhshing the Appeal? Certainly 
if they expressed themselves in terms as far from theideas 
they intended to convey, as blasphemy is from sound 
principles — then siich productions cannot be taken as of 
authority in matters of religion^ The writings cannot 
be taken as the representations ar the evidences o-f the 
"extraordinary c/car?ie55 of the views of our Early Friends/' 
I ask Samuel Tuke, as an intelligent and honest man, if 
he has not proved, (if we admit his own arguments), that 
the writings of the Early Friends cannot be taken in the 
common and obvious meaning of the language they used? 
I put this question now in the outset, and he may take 
which horn of the dilemma he pleases. If he should insist 
on the correctness of the zoritings themselves, he must aban- 
don the wholc.ground of his plea- — and either give up the 
Early Friends as guilty of blasphemy — or vindicate blas- 
phemy himself. If he maintains the ground he has taken, 
that the Friends did not mean what they said, or seemed 
to say — he gives up their writings, as a clear exposition of 
truth. 

Now, if he will prove that the Early Friends did not- 
mean any thing improper in what they wrote — and at the 
same time have it clearly understood, that their zoritings _ 
are to be corrected, and taken entirely out of the Avay of 
preventing the members of the Society, "from coming di- 
rectly to the Holy Scriptures, in all matters of faith and 
practice," I will be one a,mong the many, that will most 
heartily congratulate him. But the iirst he has not yet 
done; and the last I presume he vfill not say he intended 
to do. 

But granting, as I have done*^ for argument sa,ke, that 
S. Tuke has proved that the Early Friends did not nuaru 
mhat they said — and it follows, beyond aJi contradiction. 



184 PROCEEDINGS AND PillNCIPLES 01? 

that t^iey were not divinely inspired at the time. But 
here again S. T. may take his choice of difficulties. For 
if they did not m^an what they said, they could not he in- 
spired; and if they did mean it, the claim to inspiration is 
'equally preposterous. But the claim to Inspiration was 
made by the writers of both letters — rthat of M. F. and 
others to G. F., and his Letter to O. C. The writers of 
the first say: "We thy ba,bes with one consent being 
gathered together in the power of the Spirit," &c. And 
G. F., (as the Printed Journal has it), says: "I was moved 
by the Lord to write a paper to the Protector," &c., and 
" When J had written what the Lord had given me to writei, 
I set my name to it." And the witnesses to the paper, as 
it would seem, testify — that "G. F. was moved of the Lord 
to give out these ^vords following;" These claims to the 
Influence of the Spirit, are plainly and palpably un- 
founded. S. T. dare not say the parties were inspired, 
in using the language which they did use. • 

The plea of knowing "little of the grammar of lan^ 
guage," Plea, p. 10. will not apply to M. F. and her chil^ 
dren, who no doubt were persons of good education. — - 
But even to G. F., to whom it does apply — it is perfectly 
preposterous, to advance such an idea, in a case of pre-^ 
-tended revelation. Shall it be said, that "the man was 
moved of the Lord to write— and he did write "what the 
Lord had given him," and yet that he knew so "little of 
the grammar of language," that it came out something 
entirely different from what was intended ? Such a sup- 
position as this, is- calculated to bring these claims to 
revelation, into perfect contempt, before all intelligent 
men. 

But the author of the Plea, and every other man of 
sense, must admit that the writers of these letters were 
not inspired, as they professed, to he. Of course they were 
under a delusion* Then I ask, what becomes of their 
high claims to revelation? In the particular cases before 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 185 

'»as, every body must see that they are given up, even by 
their most zealous advocates. But the matter does not 
end here. For if they were under delusion in these par- 
ticular cases, it follows, that they could not distinguish 
true revelations^ from the workings of their own imagina- 
tions, or the transformations of Satan. 

This consequence, which I conceive must be admitted 
by all candid persons, has a most important bearing, not 
only on their particular claims to revelations, but on cer- 
tain doctrines which, it isvv^eliknown, have marked the So- 
ciety from its rise to the present day. I refer more par- 
ticularly to the doctrine of the Primary Rule of Fa-ith 
and Practice, which is said to be inward — the Spirit, or 
the Influence of the Spirit, immediately in the mind of 
man. It shows most strikingly the fallacy of reasoning 
from the infallibility of the Spirit, abstractly taken, to 
the certainty of our own impressions. Now if the very 
Founder of the Society, and the most distinguished Early 
Friends, were mistaken when they confidently claimed 
being moved by the Lord, and being gathered together 
in the power of the Spirit — how completely does this fact 
show the danger of taking supposed revelations, as the 
rule of faith and practice, independent of the Scriptures! 
I say supposed revelations, for the facts before us prove, 
that in the case of the Early Friends themselves, the doc- 
trine, wdien reduced to practice, landed there — and in 
some most strikinigr instances, in delusion, 

I consider it altogether a shrinking from the prominent 
points of the case, to go from a close and candid examina- 
tion of the Letters themselves, to general reasoning on the 
general character of George Fox and his Friends. It is 
very much like the instinct of the old bird, v/ho, well 
knowing the spot at vrhich the objects of her solicitude 
are immediately in danger— flutters on the ground to lead 
the pursuer in an opposite direction, into the open field — 
where- when the design is accomplished, she- can mount 
Y ' ' . 



186 PROCEEDINGS AND PKINCIPLES (y^ 

ihto the air, and leave the pursuer to blame himself (of 
the fruitlessness of the chase. I shall therefore leave S^ 
T. and his coadjutors, to say all the excellent things they 
can find, of the general character of G. F. and the Early 
Friends. With such exhibitions I have nothing to do. 
They may flutter on the ground, or wing the trackless 
regions of the air, at their own discretion. It is with the 
particular cases, contained in the Appeal, that 1 am im- 
mediately concerned — and to show that the advocates of 
G. F. and Early Friends, instead of invalidating the Ap- 
peal, have confirmed it as to the genuineness of the papers 
published in it, and the objects for which it was profess- 
edly written. 

But first I will remove out of the way some caviling. 
Cjbjections, which have been raised by these writers. 

S. T. says: "It may not unnaturally be asked, where 
this letterof [of M. FelFs] has been, that it has only now, 
after the lapse of almost two centuries, made its appear- 
ance? 

"To this it may be briefFy replied, that oiie of the de- 
icendaiits Of the Fell family has, it appears, in his posses- 
sion ^ a mass of old papers relative to G. Fox, and amongst 
which is a journal of rriany of the principal circumstances- 
of his life. There are in it several original letters, en- 
dorsed by G. Fox, as having been filed amongst his papers* 
The letter in rpiestion, as well as that to Oliver CromwelU 
are of this number.-' Flea, p. 8. 

Here, let the reader observe, is a complete acknow- 
ledgment of the genuineness of these letters. George 
Richardson, also, who had the MSS< some time in his pos- 
session, fully admits the genuineness of the letters in 
question* S. T. further says: "That he put the letter 
[of M. F.] by; that he endorsed it, and that he wrote on 
it something relative to the result of his return to Swarth- 
more^ is readily admitted." 

lu connection with the quotation before the last, S. T» 



THE SOCIETY or FRIENDS. 187 

proceeds: "It is admitted tlmt this collection is not the 
MSS. from which the Journal as printed, was taken, and 
-no evidence is adduced to prove that George Fox placed 
the letter where it now is, in the MSS. collection, <3r 
had any other but the most private view in its preserva- 
iion." P. 8. 

To this passage there are several objections. 

After admitting the genuineness of the papers immedi- 
ately in question, a shade of uncertainty is attempted to 
be cast over the Manuscripts, as the JournaL As to its 
not being that from which the Printed Journal was taken, 
4his must be evident to every one that reflects for a mo- 
ment upon the subject — from the simple fact of the nume- 
rous discrepancies between the two. But wlio prepared 
the MS. from whi-ch the printed Journal was taken? 
Certainly not G. F., as I shall presently prove. 

To the remark that '4io evidence is adduced to prove 
that G. F. placed the letter where it now is, in the MSS. 
collection, or had any other but the most private view in 
its preservation," it may be replied, that this alters not 
the case, as it respects the blame which attaches both to 
the writer and receiver of the letter. The genuineness 
of the letter is both proven and admitted: so likewise is 
George Fox's reception of it — together with the endorse- 
ment, and note which he placed upon it. And whether 
the parties intended to keep these matters secret or not, 
we see what sentiments passed between them. An unlaw- 
ful action does not become blameless, by the intention of 
the parties to keep it secret. Neither does it alter the 
character of the letter to suppose that G. F, did not place 
it in his Journal, but file it with his valued papers. But 
the author of the Plea is mistaken, in saying, "no evidence 
is adduced to prove that G. Fox placed the letter where 
it now is in the MSS. collection," The fact of its being 
a part of his Journal^ is sufficient proof that it was placed 
Xhere by him. The same objection might be made to hi§ 



188 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

putting any other paper into the collection, and so on, to 
the whole of i!;. But if such objections as fhis were al- 
lowed, where is the manuscript in the world, that could 
he traced to any nmn, or body of men, whatever? The 
collection, now in the possession of one of the descendants 
of the Fell family, is found in the form of a Book — with 
all the marks of age, not only of the papers, but of the 
putting of them together. The general arrangement is 
such as to preserve the order of dates, referred to in the 
narrative part, and in the original letters. These letters 
are interspersed through the whole body of the collection* 
The tra,dition in the family is, that this was the JournaL 
As such it was shown to me on my first visit to London, 
before the objectionable matters were found in it — and as 
the Journal, it has been shown to meiny a stranger. 

I believe that it is a rule in relation to evidence, univer- 
sally admitted, that no kind of proof, which would be un- 
reasonable to be expected, in the circumstances of the 
case, is to be required. Now, I ask, what sort of evidence 
does S. T. require to establish the fact,,that this collection 
of narrative and original letters, was the Journal pre- 
pared by G. F. himself? Does he want somebody to tes- 
tify that he saw him put into that collection, with his own 
hands, every individual paper that is in it? No: Such 
evidence would be a refutation of itself. We have the 
Book made up, with all the evidences of age, necessary to 
carry it back to the time of George Fox. We have the 
Tradition of the Family, in which it has been handed 
down, as a precious reUque. And we have G. Fox's own 
hand writing upon the particular papers — by which they 
were respectively verified by him. And in addition to 
all this, it vfas in the hands of Margaret Fell twelve years 
after the death of George Fox — and by her, at her death — 
at the advanced age of 88, handed down to one of her 
daughters, who was immediately concerned in the letter 
in question. Now I ask, vv^hat further evidence can any 



TIIH SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 189 

reasonable man demand, to establish tlie character of the 
collection, as the Journal^ and not as mere private papers? 
It appears to me to bs a mere quibble — an objection that 
can bear no serious examination. The reflection on the 
family, and on me, for exposing pnY^ais papers, is repelled: 
and S. T. is called upon to prove that they were so — or 
to retract the charge. 

Again, S. To, after quoting from the Printed Journal, 
the account there given of the Letter to O. C, says: 
"This is his own description of the letter." But I ask, 
where is the evidence, or even the probability^ that this 
description v/as given by G. Fox himiself ? The represen- 
tation is materially different from that contained in the 
MS. Journal. And who prepared the copy that went in- 
to the hands of the printer? Not. G. F., as already ob- 
served. It 7nas the work of Thomas Ellwood, after G. F,^s 
death, I refer the reader to J. Wyeth's supplement to 
Ell wood's Life, London ed. 1765, pp. 367, 368: where 
he will find the following sta.tement: "Our dear friend 
George Fox dying in the llth month 1690, and leaving 
behind him an excellent Journal of his travels and suffer- 
ings, our friend T. Ellwood (as no body fitter) about this 
time was at the pains of transcribing it, and fitting it for 
the Press, (a laborious work): which was printed next 
year, [1694], in a large folio." 

Here then wc have the testimony of one of the Early 
Friends, that G. F. left, at his death, a Journal, &c., and 
the tradition of the family in which it is preserved, says 
that the MSS. in question is that Journal — and all the 
internal evidence of the papers themselves, including the 
well-known hand writing of G. F. verifying the most im- 
portant of them, proves the fidehty of this Tradition. 
J. W.'s testimony is conclusive, that it was T. E.'s man- 
uscript, and not the origincd Journal, that went into the 
hands of the printer — so it wa,s T. EUwood's a.ccount, a,nd 
XioX George Fox's. 



190 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

J. W.'s language allows a fair inference, that T. E» 
made important changes in the Journal — in fitting it for 
the Press — for which no one was fitter than he. It wa^ 
no doubt a laborious work. And while I could pity the 
man who had to perform it, I could neither approve the 
freedom which was taken, nor the principle on which it 
Vv^as conducted. I think that the Founder of a Society, 
has as much right to hand down his own character, in his 
own way, to his followers, as any man has to make his 
own idll^ for the disposal of his property after his death. 
Should there he incapacity/ in either case, the Journal or 
the Will might be set aside. But it does not appear to 
me, to be correct, to make changes either in the Journal 
or the Will — and let it go to record in the name of the 
^leccased. But the idea of revising revelations is perfectly 
absurd. Those who undertake the revision of things pro^ 
fessed to be by immediate revelation^ virtually declare that 
they believe the pretension unfounded. But G. Fox not 
only made such a profession in particular cases mentioned 
in tJie Appeal, but he claimed again and again to be in 
the same spirit and power that the prophets and apostles 
were in. But it is a complication of contradictions, to 
revise the pretended revelations of George Fox — to retain 
the claims which he made to revelation — and then to in- 
sist on the clearness of his views, and the authority of his 
opinions, as thus reinsed^ without acknowledging the fact 
that they are so. 

But it turns out, that great liberty was taken, in revis- 
ing George Fox's revelations. It was not only found that 
those revelations would not do, without passing through 
the hands of some one that "knew [a] little [more] of the 
grammar of language," than he did, but that the pruning 
knife must be put to the revelations themselves. Why 
else was it, that in preparing G. F.'s excellent Journal for 
the Press, the words "George Fox who is the Son of God,'^ 
and "My kingdom is not of this world," were left out? 



I'HE SOCIETY OF FKIEKDS. 191 

If, as is said, "any candid reader of this letter, who is at 
all acquainted with the character of the writer and with 
hib usual style, especially at that period, will find no diffi- 
culty in understanding the passage in a wholly inoffensive 
sense;" Plea, p. 5, why was so much care taken to keep 
these expressions ont of sight? 

On the subject of revision, a comparison of the MS* 
with the Printed Journal, will show, that great and impor- 
tant changes were made. And these changes were not 
confined to the first edition of the work. G* F. died in 
1690; but so great was the work of preparing the Jour- 
nal for the Press, that it was not accomplished till 1694. 
In 1765, an edition was published, greatly changed from 
both those which had preceded it. The tv/o first retained 
the cases of Witches, (in the common sense of the term), 
which G. F. professed to discover by revelation. The 
3rd edition left out the word zcitches, and put in wicked 
persons — retaining all the former claims to revelation. 
Here was evidence that the revisers believed he was mis- 
taken in the very thing said to be revealed; and j6i they 
retained the claim to revelation — applying it to quite a 
different character of subjects.*" 



* Another illustration of the difficulty of coming at the real in- 
lention of George Fox, by what is given to the v;orId lo print, by 
his zealous admirers, occurs in the Friends' Library, now publish- 
ing in monthly numbers, edited by William and Thomas Evans of 
Philadelphia. In that work, p. 96, the editors have given what is repre= 
sented to be one of George Fox's old manuscripts. It rel ites to 
certain bequests which he made: and among the rest, a Case and 
Bottles, which G. F. is made to say, in the Friends* Library, he 
gave to stand in the meeting house to hold '■'■loater^ for Friends to 
drink. 1 have in my possession an old paper, which was preserved 
with the Journal, but not embodied in it, in which G. F, says: "My 
wife shall have the profits or use of Pettyes with the land as long- 
as she d?5th Live, if she will, and then after her Death to ye. Lorrl 
& Friends as ye Deed doth order of mine. And my Eboney Bed 
with the curtins &; my great Chair &c my Sea Case with the Glass 
Bottles in itt. 1 doe Give to stand in the house at Petlyes which 1 
have given for a meeting place, & ye Chair will serve for Friends to 
sitton& ye Bed to Lie upon, and ye Sea Case will hold Some Liquor 
or Drink if any should be faint." 

Here let it be observed,, that the verbion of this bequest^ a^^ !^ivea 



19:2 rROCEEiilNGS and PitlNCIPLES OP 

One argumeDt used bj the advocates of G. F. in de* 
fending him in the use of the terms the Son of God, as ap- 
plied to himself, is, that if it had been considered object 
tionable bj CromAvell, he would not have suffered it to 
pass as he did. This however is perfectly beside the mat- 
ter. It is not the question what Cromwell thought of 
the expressions, or what were his motives for passing it by; 
but whether it was correct. On this there ought now to 
be no difference of opinion. That O. C. at the time oi 
the writing of this Letter, was using his utmost address to 
attach G. F. to him, and his policy, is fully evinced in the 
printed Journal. And if he, in carrying on an artful 
piece of management, to promote his own schemes of am- 
bition — gave countenance to any erroneous sentiments ot 
forms of expression in G. F's. letter, it becomes no rule of 
decision in the case for us. 

I confess that I am really surprised that the Friends, 
in order to defend G. Fox, should even 5eem to justify the 
use of the terms the Son of God, as applied to him or any 
other man. Let S. T., G. R. and others reflect on the 
zeal which has been displayed from the days of G. F. to 
the present time, aga-inst the commn mode of salutation, 
because the Early Friends and their successors thought 
those salutation, made too near an approch to the honour 
which belongs to God only — though every body knows 

m the Friends' Library, destroys both the teller and the spirit of the 
original. Every body who knows any thing of the terms in ques- 
tion, knows that Cases were used to hold ardent spirits. G. F. 
thought it necessary to keep a supply of this article at the meeting 
house, "if any should be faint." But the version of the legacy con- 
tained in the Friends' Library — (not saying that the editors altered 
It), puts G. F. in advance of all Temperance reform that ever has 
been thought of. For who would think of keeping wafer, boftted up 
in a case, at a meeting house, while springs or wells afforded a sup- 
ply-? 

One word, as we pass along, on the singularity of making the 
Lord a joint reversionary legatee, with Friends, to come in, after the 
death of the widow, to the permanent possession of this lot of land 
called Pettyes, containing about three acres : which seems also to 
have been previously t;ecured by deed. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 193 

parfectly well, that thej^are noLused to express any thing 
ia the character ofdivine honours. Let them also coniider 
what has b3en said againsl; calling the Scriptures the Word 
of Goi, though in num^rouscases inScriptareit was used 
to signify the message which God had sent to men. The 
perpetually recurring objection to this has been, that the 
term belongs peculiarly to Christ. Why should G. F. 
have been so sensitive in these cases, and so dull of ap- 
prehension in the other? He could call it blasphemy to 
apply the term thi Word of GdI to the Scriptures — and 
J^i he cauld receive the appellaiions of the Bread of Life, 
the Fountain of Life, the Father of Eternal Felicity. &:c« 
&c. and could call himself not a Son-, hut the Sop. of God. 
You may take a Ilottento!;, or Gr38nlander — and if he 
knows the first principles of the Gospel of (/hrist. he wil' 
know that the terms the Son- of Gjrl apply to the Lord 
Jesus, and to him alone. How awfully ij/'^wi ant then, 
do the advocates of G. F. represent hi-Ti to have been, 
when he had been a preacher sevjpn' years, and had al- 
ready gathered a large Society! But such is the plea 
which his ablest advocates are making for him — such the 
extremities of the case — either to suifer him to be reput- 
ed a blasphemer, or make him out consummately ignorant. 
But in either case, his authority as an inspired teacher is 

gone. 

S. T. observes, page 2, that the charge against G. F, 
and that against the Early Friends are almost inseparable. 
And yet he say, pp. 8, 9, in regard to George Fox, "I 
must utterly deny that there is one tittle of evidence that 
he approved the oflfensive expressions^ in this Letter. He 
doubtless knew how to distinguish between enthusiastic 
feeling in new converts, leading to extravagant expres- 
sions and grossly misapplied Scripture terms, and the im- 
pious ascription to him of that which belongs to the Lord 
of Life alone; and there is no reason whatever to doubt, 
that the least idea of such an ascription would- have dra.wn 
Z 



194 TROCEEUIAGS AiVD VllLI^UlVhi^h OF 

from him the iiidigncint exclamation substantially used hy 
him on another occasion, Io7ri nothing, Christ is alL''^ 

Here S. T. completely inverts the natural order of evi- 
dence. He utterly denies tliat there is one tittle of evi- 
dence that he a,p proved the offensive expressions in the 
letter — and assumes that the least idea of such an ascrip- 
tion as the plain meaning of the words conveyed, would 
have drawn from him the indignant reply I am nothings 
Christ is all. Bat what, I ask, would the form of expres- 
sion here quoted from him amount to, with the notion held 
hy Nayicr and others? Would it have been a rejection 
of the title of Christ? It is a form of expression as 
equivocal as tliat used by Nayler himself — "to ascribe 
this Name, Power and Virtue to James JVayler, (or to that 
which had a beginning, and must return to dust) or for that 
to be exalted or worshipped, to me is great Idolatry, and 
with the Spirit of Christ Jesus in me it is condemned;'' 
&c. And yei. if- was the notion both of Nayler and his 
followers, that ^Af?/- ':aight ^Yovs\\i^ the Christ that was in 
kirn,* 

As G-. R. has acknowledged the letters to G. F. and- 
the w'Orship paid to J N. to be of the same character, and 
8. T. has also referred to the case of Naylor, in a manner 
corroborating the views of G- R. as will be more fully 
shown hereafter, I shall make the follov/ing quotations re- 
lating to this most extraordinary case. When Nayler 
was examined by the committee of Parliament, he saidr 
"I do abhor that any honour due to God should be given 
to me, as lam a creature. But it pleased the Lord to set 
me up as a sign of the coming of the righteous. One, and 
wdiat has been done as I passed through these towns, I 
was commanded by the Lord to suffer such things to be 
done by mc, as to the outward, as a sign, not as I am a 
creature." Burton's Diary, vol. L p. IL 

Again. "Being asked about assuming the iii\e o( the 
firired often thomand, he shifted it notably thus.. He tliat 



TilE SOc'IErV OF FRIENDS. 195 

has a greater measure of Christ than 10,000 below him, 
the same is the fairest of 10,000." — ib. p, 46. 

Again, in reference to the women he said: ''It is not 
true. Thej gave no worship to me, I abhor it, as I am a 
creature." — ib,p. 47. 

Every one acquainted with the case, knows perfectly, 
that these seeming censures on worship offered to him as a 
creature^ was no condemnation in facJ;, either on himself or 
his followers, for they are mixed with direct justifications 
of both. 

But what did G. F. ever say of Margaret Fell and her 
daughters, of Thomas Salthouse and William Caton (both of 
whom became prominent ministers) and of Thomas Lower, 
=a__son-in-law, that even made an approach to the appear- 
ance of censure here expressed by Nayleronhis followers? 
J. N. could Jjny worship^ offered to him as h'i was a crea- 
ture, and yet rccicve and justify it^ on the perverted view 
which was entertained by himself and his deluded follow- 
ers, of the indwelling of Christ in him, and the chciract^T 
which he claimed from that indwelling. And yet when 
"SiV Gilbert Pickering oliered another question (being un- 
■satished) about what his hope was in Christ's merits, and 
h@w he prayed to Christ that died at Jerusalem," T. Burton 
says: "Whereupon Nayler was called in again, and an= 
swered prdty Orthodoxly to those questions, and gave an 
account of his faith in God and Clirist." vol. i. 48. 

So he could, on such questions as these, answer pretty 
orthodoxly, and yet hold his own wild and visionary views, 
in regard to his own character, and justify his followers 
in their extravagant admiration of him. I make there re- 
maj-ks from iao. acknowledged affinity of the two cases — 
and from the fact that S. T. rests an important point of 
his plea, on the orthodox statements, which G. F. made on 
the same points, with those embraced in Sir Gilbert Pick- 
ering's questions. The case of Nayler shov/s completely, 
the fallacy of arguments drawn from the circumstance of 
Jais having ansv>-ered such questions pre#i/ orthodoxly r 



19t5 



PROCEJepiNUS ANU I'iUNC IPIiEs OF 



There cerlainlj were reasons v.hj the Society made up 
with J. N. as they did. But his Rucaniation bears strong 
marks of an adherence to his original opinions, vrhich led 
to those unhappy results. He still I'etained the form of 
expression, limiting his condemnation to the worship paid 
to his person — tohima^ a creaZwre, which left the essence of 
the delusion out of view: or passed it over virtuailyjustifi- 
ed. This was the perverted doctrine of the indwelling of 
Christ, and the character thereby conferred, instead of 
those pure and simple views of the subject presented in 
Holy Scripture. Thus in one of his papers, speaking of 
his previous experience he says: "Into that Life I was 
comprehended, and the apple of that pure .eye v/as opened 
in me, which admits not an evil thought, but is Vvounded 
and bruised with the lea,st appearance of evil, even this 
birth was born which reigns through righteousness, and 
suffers till all righteousness be fulfilled in every particular. 
And this is the Son of God forever, and into this Life and 
Kingdom I w^as transiatedo" Collection of sundry Books 
&c. by J. N. London ed. 1716, p xli. 

And again, speaking of a letter written to him, in which 
it was said: 'Thy name shall no more be James Nayler, 
but Jesus;' he says: "So this I deny also, That the Name 
of Christ Jesus is received instead of James Nayler, or be 
ascribed to him ; For the ncme is to the Promised Seed to 
all generations, and he that hath the Son^ katii the name 
which is Life and Power, the Salvation and the unction, 
into which all the children of Light are baptized," — z6. 
p. liii. 

Now I ask any man of common understanding, if this 
is not claiming the JVame at the very moment he was seem- 
ing to reject it? He that hath the Son hath the JVame^ 
&c. 

But to return from this necessary digression to S. T's. 
assertion, that there is not a tittle of evidence to prove 
that G, F. approved the offensive expression contained in 



THE SOCIETY OP FRIEN*DS. 197 

the letters — we are directly at issue. I insist that the fact 
of the preservation of the letter, as it was preserved by 
G. F., the endorsement upon it, and the note on the face 
of it, in his own hand, are prima facia evidence that he did 
approve it. The v/hole body of the Letter is improper, 
yet the printed Journal makes him sa,y, that he felt free- 
dom from the Lord to comply with this most extraordin- 
ary requent. The same authority makes him say, before 
this letter was written, the Power of God broke in upon 
M. Fell and her daughter Sarah 6lc, He received and 
preserved similar letters through a period of 23 years, 
without one single indication of disapprobation. 

The author of the Plea, should know, that the burden of 
proof now lies upon him, if the disapprohaiion of George 
Fox, on these letters is to be contended for. But in tak- 
ing this ground, there is a most striking incongruity W'ith 
the position laid down in the beginning of the second part 
of the Plea, where he says: "The claim and the grant can- 
not be separated, for there can be no doubt that George 
Fox and his coadjutors were essentially united in opinion 
on substantial points !" The use which he makes of these 
two positions is this. There is no evidence that George 
Fox approved the offensive expressions of Margaret Fell 
and others — therefore he did not approve them, of course 
he was free from blame. The writers of the Letter were 
free from blame also, for there could be no doubt of their 
being united in opinion &c. This is the substance of 
the argument — the w^eakness of which is not to be at- 
tributed to the want of talent in the advocate, but to the 
total badness of the cause. 

But if G. F. did not see the objectionable character of 
the Letter in question, it is no great argument for the 
clearness of his perception. Comparing this letter with 
his supposed revelation, forbiding him to say "good mor- 
row" &c. reminds me of one of those formerly who, (in 
figurative langua,ge,) strained at a gnat, and swallowed a 
<camel. 



193 PicOeSEDINaS and PRlNCiPLES OF 

But wether he was capable of discovering the objcc- 
tiona,ble character of the terms used in the letter or not — 
taking the language in its plain and obvious meaning of 
the words, it was ascribing to him what belonged only to 
Christ, in the fulness of his divine character. As to the 
meaning o[ the vrriters — there is one general rule; to judge 
of what people mean, by what they say, 

S. T. and G. Richardson both lay great stress on the 
shortness of the time which had elapsed from the con-, 
vincement of these persons, to the date of the letter. But 
a weaker apology could scarcely bethought of. Suppose it 
were placed in the very hour — or under the immediate in- 
fluence of the preaching of G. F. you would only have a 
more distinct illustration of the effects of his ministry. — 
The further you trace the parties from the time of their 
hearing G. F. the more time you give for their own sober 
reflection to correct the immediate effects of his preaching. 
But here we have it so early, as to be at no loss for its or- 
igin — and we have it so late as to put all idea of a mere 
momentary transport quite out -of the question. G. R. and 
S. T. both entirely overlook the fact, that this same Mar- 
.rgaret Fell wrote the Letter to J. Nayler four years after 
the Letter to George Fox was written. They forget that 
Ann Curtis's Letter Vv^as written eight years after M. F's, 
and that Thoma,s Lower''s was written twenty-three years 
after the first of this description. How weak then is the 
apology, which has been made,on account of the shortness 
of the time after their first acquaintance^with G. F.! 

<3t, Richardson gives, as one Apology, that M. F's. dangh- 
ters were mere girls, inferring that it was a sort of girlish 
indiscretion. Let the Letters Speak for themselves. Mar- 
garet Fell evidently held the pen for herself and family. 
She was 33 years of age, the wife of a man of distinction, 
with her daughters and servants about her. In the ab- 
sence of her husband, she had embraced the views of a 
stranger, and on the approach of her husband, grieved an4 



'Tjie society of friexds. 199 

ofTended with what had transpired in his famil} -^-^she 
writes to this stranger the Letter now hefore us.* Let 
the reader examine that letter, and its peculiar features. 
The J begin by calling G. F. '^our dear father in the 
Lord'* — which might pass as unobjectionable, but for 
v/hat follows-j '^Eternal Praises be to our father." Now I 
ask what idea can we suppose they had of G. F. to con- 
sider him as an object to receive '•''Eternal Praises?''- Is 
any being to receive Eternal Praises but God? And this 
sentiment is immediately connected with the following: 
"We thy babes, being with one consent gathered togeth^ 
er in the power of the Spirit." &c. Will S. T. and G. 
R. or any one else, dare to say that this was true? They 
mighi; as well say that the worshipers of Nayler were in- 
spired. But here is a direct claim to the influence and 
power of the Spirit. If this was true, G. F. was an ob- 
ject of worship — if it was not true, they were under a dc 
lusion. But to proceed. Let us first notice the allusions 
to the particular difficulties which they had in their minds 
in writing to G. F. "And let not that beastly power 
which keeps us in bondage separate thy bodily presence 
from us, who riegns as King above it, and would rejoice 
to see thy kingly power here triumph over it." — "My own 



*There is some discrepancy between the accounts given by M. F. 
in her "Testimony," and that in the printed Journal, as revised by 
Ellwood. M. F. represents Nayler and Farns worth, 'as in the house 
at the time Judge Fell came home: and that she had received in- 
formation, or in the some v/ay understood tljat G. F. would come 
that night, which he did. Of course G. F. was sent for before 
Judge Fell came home, which no doubt was the case. Ellwcod's 
version of the story, (which must be incorrect) is this: "Soon after 
Judge Fell being come home, Margaret Fell his wife sent to me, 
desiring me to return thither. And I feeling freedom from the Lord 
so to do, went back through the country to Swarthmore.". But both 
accounts agree in representing his being sent for, as on account of 
Judge Fell. M. F. says: "And any may think what a condition I 
was like to be in, that either I might displease my husband, or of- 
fend God, for he was very much troubled Vvith us all in the house 
and family, they had so prepossessed him against us.*' — M. F. Tes- 
timony, p. 5. 



200 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES Of 

dear hart, though thou hast shaked the dust of thy feet at 
him who would not receive thee, nor is not worthy of thee 
which shall be a testiinony against him forever, yet thou 
knows that we have recieved thee into our hearts and shall 
live with thee eternally, and it is our life and joy to he 
with thee. And soe my dear hart let not the power of 
darkness separate thy bodily presence from us which will 
be a grief and trouble to us, and especially thorrow him, 
whom thou knowes can call nothing his own but the 
plagues and woes. 

"My soul thursts to have thee to come over, if it be but 
for two or three days to strike down the deceit in him for 
the truthes sake. And if thou do not come, it will add 
abundantly to our sorrow & strengthen the beastly pow- 
er," &c. M. F.'s Special Letter. 

G. F. writes under this, the following note: ''This was 
sent to G. F. and he came back againe to thes that sent 
for him & he, that he shaked the dost of hise feet against 
was not long after convinsed." 

What, it may be asked, was the heastJy power that kept 
them in bondage, over which G. F. reigned as King — 
and over which they would rejoice to see his kingly pow- 
er triumph? Who v»^as it that G. F. had shaked the dust 
of his feet against — vfhx) could call nothing his own but 
the plagues and woes — and in whom G. F. was to strike 
down the deceit? Who was it, that was not long after 
convinsed? G. F. says in the printed Journal: "Where 
when I came, I found the priests and professors and that 
envious Justice Sawry had much incensed Judge Fell and 
Captain Sands against the Truth, by their lies. But 
when I came to speak with him, I answered all his objec- 
tions: and so thoroughly satisfied him by-the Scriptures 
that he was convinced in his judgment." — Journal P. 1. 
p. 150. 

I shall now proceed to other parts of this extraordina- 
ry letter. 



THE SOCiSTY OF FitiE^'DSi 



201 



Passages in the letter addres- j 

sed to G,F, 

"O thou bread of Life^^ 
without which bread our 
souls will starvei" 

"O forever more give its 
this breadi''' 

'■'Oh our life^ our desire is 
to see thee againi" 

^^Our desire is to see thee 
again that we may be re= 
freshed and established, and 
so have life r/iore abundantly.'^ 

"We hope thou wilt not 
leave us comfortless, but wilt 
com^ again." 

'^Though that sorrow be 
for a time, yet joy cometh in 
the morning.'''' 

'^Oh our life, wc hope to 
see thee again, that our joy 
mayhefuU^ for in thy pre- 
sence is fullness of joy ^ and 
where thou dwells is pleas- 
ures forever more.'''' 



Passages of Scripture nearly 
or quite in the same form* 
"Jesus said unto tliem, I 

am the Bread of Lifj.^^—JnOi 

6, 35. 

"Then said they unto him 

Lord, evermore give us ihii 

hread:'~ih 34, 

"When Christ who is our 

life shall appear. "-Col. 3, 4. 
"I am come that ye might 

have lif'.^ and tb-: ': ye w.ight 

have it more abundantly.''^ 

Jno. 10,10. 

"I will not leave you com- 
fortless; I will come to 

you."~-Jno 14, 18. 

"In bis favour is life, 

weeping may endure for a 

night, but joy cometh in the 



')') 



WMrning 

"These 



s. 30. 5. 
lings have I 
spoiven unto you that my 
joy might remain inyou-.and 
that your ioy might be full.'''' 
—Jno. 15. 11. 

"//^ thy presence is fullness 
of joy: at thy right hand 
there are pleasures forever 
more. — ^^Fs. 16. IL ■ 

The letter goes on to say: 

"Oh thou Fountain of eternal lij''e oar souls thursts after 
thee, for in thee alone is our life and peace^ and without 
thee have we no peace for our souls is much refreshed by 
seeing thee, and our lifesis preserved bythe^ O thou Father 
of Eternal Felicity.'' " Thou art the Fountain of Hfe^ "Our 
life and peace is in thee.'"' 

Eight years after the date of this letter, Ann Curtis, 
not Q. mere girl^ hut the wife of a man of wealth and dis- 
tinction (for so it appears Thomas Curtis was,) a woma,a 
who was considered a suitable person to wait upon the 

Kingj to procure the release of G. F. from prkoa, writes 
3A 



302 PROCEEDI.XGS AND PRINCiri.ES Of 

a letter to him, filled with most extravagant expre^ijsions 
of regard for G, F. and concluding with these words: "O 
what shall J say, for my heart is rafeshed and I am over 
come with thy love, and the excellency of thy beatity that 
my desire is after thee, in thee is the everlasting being, the 
fulness and fountain of eternity^ in thy presents is life, O my 
dear father bless me with thy presents, and grant that I 
may live v/ith thee forever, and he cload with thy righte- 
ousness."" &c. 

Fifteen -years after this— Thomas Lower, as already 
noticed, wrotJ=. to G. and M. F. saying of the form.er, 
"Whose company is a blessing to ail that see, know and 
receive him as he is, a blessing to the nations, and the joy 
of his people, the second appearance of him who is blessed for- 
ever.^'' These were not the transports or '^enthusiastic 
feelings of new converts." 

But how did it happen that these things should have 
been said a,gain and again to G. F. by his most intimate 
friends—and nearest relatives, and the very persons who 
were most likely to knov/ what would be agreeable? How 
was it, that lie preserved these letters — verefied by his 
own hand, and the most offensive of them bearing on the 
same page, a. note Y\'hich. showed that the whole subject 
was in his mind, as well as in his eye? 

George Richardson gives a solution of this most extra- 
ordinary portion of the History of the Society, and of the 
Early Friends. His words are these: 

"But the real fact appears to be, that some of the earlj 
converts, previously to the fail of James Nayler, and pos- 
sibly some instances may occurlater — intending reverence 
to the Power and Spirit of Christ, with v/hich these cho- 
sen vessels were eminently filled, do not appear on all oc- 
casions, in their language at least, to have duly discrimin- 
ated between the mortal instrument, and that divine in- 
fluence by 'v\h:*ch V-ioy were actuated. The fall of James 
Nayler forcibly drew the attention of the yet infant So- 



THE SOCIETY OF FIIIE^DS, 203 

ciety to this danger; and a perceptible chaDge in their 
«t)'le and phraseology too place. A more chaste assump* 
tion of divine authority, and less fullness of expression, is 
very observable. Thus a Gracious and Mercifuil God, by 
that painful event, gave them a salutary admonition.^' 
Brief Remarks, p. 6. 

S. Tuke substantially corroborate this statement, by 
saj'ing: "I am willing to admit, that the fall of James 
Nayler was mercifully over-ruled to the lasting benefit of 
the Society." Plea, p. 25. 

Here G. R. professes to disclose the real fact ^ and every 
impartial person must admit that he has done it. I am 
mti<ih obliged to him for placing the subject in a point of 
view, that fully justifies all that I said upon it jn the Ap" 
:peal. He has made a full confession, that the idolatrous 
worship otFcred to James Nayler, and these addresses to 
George Fox, originated from the same cause. Ke goes 
further, and says, that these '^converts-' do not appear on 
all occasions, in their language at least, to have duly dia>= 
criminated between the mortal instrument, and thui divine 
in^uence by which they were actuated." Then, in lan- 
gtiage Gi /cG^i, it vras worship — divine honour^ paid to the 
MORTAL iNSTRUMEA'T. Itis proper howevcF to notice some 
incongruity in this passage. The "chosen vessels," as he 
calls them, were plainly George Fox, and James Nayler^ 
And if these men were •'eminently filled" with the^Power 
and Spirit of Christ" — if they were actuated by the divine 
infiuence, how did it happen that they suffered their de- 
luded followers to go on in this shocking course? How 
could they have silently received, to use the language of 
S. Tuke, ^^extravagant expressions and grossly misapplies 
SCRIPTURE terms;" Or permitted without reproof or even 
instruction, language to be addressed to the mortal instru- 
ment^ which belonged only to Deity? The only reasona- 
ible answer that can be given is, that the persons who re- 
-^eived these idolatrous addresses, were under the same 



201 P1(0CEEDIX(;S AND PRINCIPLES OF 

misapprehension of terms or of subjects, which lod their 
followers into these extravagances. 

Bat the origin of this truly disgraceful business, appears 
to be an erroneous idea of the character of Christ. They 
appear to have regarded this term, essentially to belong 
to a mere inward "principle." That Jesus of Nazareth 
was not truly or properly the Christ, but that the Christ 
was in him. — And that the outward person was so de- 
nominated, in consequence of that which was w Az/Ti-^ap- 
plying, by a sort of figure of speech, the term to "the 
thing contaitiing''^ — which belonged to "the thing contain- 
ad.'''' We may easily perceive how this perverted idea of 
the character of Christ, v»^as carried out hy the deluded 
followers of Fox and Nayler, (for G. R, justly classes them 
together in the real fact of the ca,sc,) to the monstrour ex- 
travagances of language which they used. For if it was 
intended to distinguish between Jesus of Nazareth and 
Christ — to deny utterly that the outward person that suf- 
fered was properly the Son of God, and yet to admit the 
titles to be applied to him, on account, merely of what 
was in him — and that he was an object of worship on this 
ground — the delusion, could easily be carried out, as the 
real fad oHhe case demonistrated, to apply to these men, 
the same epithets, and the same language of adoration, 
that was offered to him — it being supposed, that the same 
thing was in ^Ae/)2, that was in that outw^ard person that 
suffered at Jerusalem. 

We can easily concieve also, how, under this delusion, 
a man should suppose the term, the Son Ipf God, might be 
applied to himself-^— and how he could grow up into the 
condition of Jesus Christ, as well as into the condition of 
the Prophets and Apostles, and of Adam before he fell. 

It is now matter of history, that this was the delusion 
of Nayler and his followers. He condemned the prac- 
tice of his followers, so far as they had idolized his person. 
But I am not aw-are that he ever saw^ the root and origin 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIEXDS. 205 

of the evil. lie never, so far as I know, condemned the 
principle from which these extravagances proceeded. 

But in the case of G. F., he as fullj admitted the Idola,- 
trous language offered to him, as Nayler did — and even 
more so. J. N. put the letter of one of his friends into 
his pocket — not intending that any one should see it. G. 
F. preserved, not one letter only, but a number- — written 
through a series of 23 years. — He not only kept them, but 
he endorsed^ and under wrote them. And not only so, but 
he wrote a letter to the Chief Magistrate of the nation, in 
the very same strain, and applied to himself a title which 
all christians use to Jesus Christ, and to him only. He not 
only preserved these letters, written by himself and his 
friends, but he kept them to the da,y of his death^ — and 
those the most nearly related to him, and who knew his 
sentiments and feelings the best, handed them down to 
their children. 

If G. F. ev(?r went as far as J. N. in denying the pro- 
priety of applying such titles to him AS A CREATURE, lie 
did not do it like James Nayler, with direct referance to 
his friends who had used such language to him. Instead 
of reproving Margaret Fell for her folly in writing to him 
as she did, he showed all along the highest respect for her 
— and eleven years after the death of her former hus- 
band, he married her — without any evidence of a change 
of opinion. And five or six years after they were so mar- 
ried — a son-in-law, standing high in esteem — speaks of G. 
F. as the second appearance of him who is blessed forever ! 

G. R. thinks the fall of Nayler forcibly drew the atten- 
tion of the yet infant Society to this danger;" in Vv^hich S. 
Tuke concurs. I think this is very probable. And that 
it might have been the means of saving the Society as a 
body, from worshipping George Fox. I think it also prob- 
able, that this might have induced T. E., W. Penn and 
others, the more determinately to resist the insertion of 
these letters in the printed Journal^ as they stood in the 



306 PROrEEDINOS AND PRINCIPLES OP 

Manuscript. Both the disgrace and the punishmznt of 
Nayler, were calculated forcibly to d'^aw attention to the 
danger. He was regarded as a blasphemer — was brand- 
ed in the forehead with the letter B: bored through the 
tongue with a hot iron — whipped most dreadfully, and 
immured in a dungeon. It may well be supposed that 
some at least of G. F. friends became more cautious how 
they expressed themsch^es. But it is perfectly astonish- 
ing, that he should have kept the letter which had been 
written to him, and that others of the same s^tamp should 
have been written afterwards, A. C's. letter was written 
ybz^r years, and T« L's. nineteen yeiXMd, afLer the affair of 
Nayier broke out. 

These facts prove beyond all question, that the delusion 
had taken deep root, in the minds of G. F. and his friends, 
and there is no evidence, in my possession, to prove that 
it ever was eifacLually removed. 

All the arguments about the change of tlie meaning of 
words, in the lapse of time, are lost in the admission 
which the advocates of G. F. have made. 

For they are admitted to have heenirnproper, offensive—^ 
grossly misapplied Scripture terms — and identical with the 
delusion of Nayier and his followers. It is well known 
that the public considered the honours paid to N. as Idol- 
atrous and Blasphemous. When R. Barclay was called 
dpon by an opponent to say what he thought of these 
things he replied, I think them 6o^/i wicked and abominable. 
The attempt to soften the matter by pleading a 
change in the meaning of the terms has failed — the more 
the case is examined, the more decidedly reprehensible it 
.appears. And now, as G. F. and his friends are 
placed on the same ground with Nayier and his followers, 
the language of Barclay, must apply to them all — it was 
both wicked and abominable. 

And now, the two champions in the cause, may set down 
and condole each other, not only in their signal failure^ 



TH£ SOCIETY' OF FKii:M>b'^ 207 

bul in their having cut up their own cause at the very 
root — not onlj in having proven, that the Early Friends 
were not inspired, when tiiey claimed inspiration in the 
most positive terms; but that their writings are not to be 
taken for what they say — and over and above all this, in 
having connected G. F. and his friends wjih N., and to 
draw upon them the full a.nd unequivocal censure pro- 
nounced by R. B. 

G. R. speaking of the case of Nayler, and acknowledg- 
ing as the rea/jTac^, that the two cases originated in the 
same causes — says: "Thus a Gracious and Merciful God, 
by this painful event, gave them [the Early Friends] a 
salutary admonition." Brief Remarks, p. G. 

And by the exhibiticii of these letters, another "salu- 
tary admonition" is given* But instead of receiving the 
admonition, and profiting by it, the official acts of the 
Society have made it a disown able offence to call in ques- 
tion, language which in its plain, and literal meaning is 
Idolatrous and blasphemous; and some of the most disting- 
uished men in the Society have come forward to Plead 
for the authors of such things! 

The ingenuity of the author of the Plea, w^as displayed 
in shifiing^ as much as possible, from an examination of 
the particular cases noticed in the Appeal, and dwelling 
largely onfar-fttched conclusions from G. Fox's general 
doctrines and general character. I have often said, and 
am willing to repeat it again, that G. Fox said many ex- 
cellent things: and so did James Nayler. But those ex- 
cellent things in either case, are perfectly irrelevant w^hen 
opposed to facts, both proven and admitted. Nor does it 
follow that because either of them could write or speak 
pretty orthodoxly on faith in Christ, that they and their fol- 
lowers were not under delusion, when they claimed in- 
spiration, in receiving or ascribing to the mortal instrument 
titles and honours due only to him who is the object of 
worship, both of saints on earth and angels in heaven* 



208 rilOCEEDlN(^S AND rilllNCirLES OF 

The remark which I made in the Appeal, Am. ed. pi* 
^1, brings the charge to specific cases — and this, not as 
the object of the Appeal, but as the result of the papers. 
'''•Those papers which J have now produced^ and others in ex- 
istence, furnish undeniable proof, that there was the as- 
sumption bj him, and the ascription to him, of attributes 
zuhich belonged only to the Divine beingi^^ This position has 
been fully maintained, in the foregoing remarks. 

But the argument used in the beginning of the second 
part of the Plea, is entitled to some attention. In the 
first part of the Plea he says: "In regard to George Fox 
I must utterly deny that there is one tittle of evidence 
that he approved of the offensive expressions in the letter." 
Plea, p. 8. And again: "but theso circumstances certain- 
ly furnish no evidence of his approbation of the terms in 
which the letter is couched." ib. p. 9. But hear him in 
the place to which I have alluded. "If I have succeeded 
in relieving the character of George Fox from the im- 
putation of assuming to himself divine attributes, the char- 
acter of the Early Friends must also have been in a great 
degree relieved from the imputation of ascribing those 
attributes to him. The claim and the grant cannot be 
separated, for there can be no doubt that George Fo'^ and 
his coadjutors were essentially united in opinion on sub- 
stantial points;" &c. First he gives up the letters, and 
endeavours to justify G. F. by denying that he approved 
them, while all the facts of the case were directly against 
him. And having, as he seemed to suppose, brought G. 
F. off clear oi approving the things contained in the letter, 
he attempts to bring off the writers also — by the argu- 
ment, that ifG. F. was clear, ^Ar;2/ must be clear also — for 
they were no doubt united in opinion. If this is not spc- 
cial pleading I know not what is. 

Now I will admit most readily that "the claim and the 
grant cannot be separated." What follows? If it had 
not been claimed it would not have been granted. If it 



TilJE SOCIETY Or r .^.Ar..siiiS. £'09 

was. granted, ichad been claimed. - I ask if these are not 
undeniable conclusions from S. T's, own premises'? Vv'e 
come to the question, Did the writers of this letter grant as 
criplions of divine a.ttributes to G. Fox? No man in bis 
sober senses can deny that they did. George Richardson 
places them along with the \Yorshipers of James Nayler, 
and E^obert - Barclay pronounces their extravagance, 
''both wicked and abominable." Oh! but G. Fox was 
not to blame — He did not approve of this gross misappli- 
cation of Scripture terms — and therefor^ they were not to 
blame, for there could be no doubt that he and they Vt^ere 
united in opinion, and the claim and the gra,nt ca,nnot be 
separated!!! 

What a logical conclusion! What a a noble Plea for 
G. Fox and Early Friends! 

The writers of both pamphlets, ought to know, and no 
doubt do know, for I have made the declaration again 
and again in print, that I believe George Fox and Early 
Friends said many excellent things. The same ma}^ be 
said of James Nayler himself. But this is no argument 
against their having been in error in particular cases. 

Such particular cases, I have proven, in reference to 
George Fox a.nd some of his particular friends, to show 
the danger of resting unduly upon them, or making their 
writings the standard of doctrines: or admitting the no- 
tion, that they received their doctrines by immedia,ic re- 
velation, independent of the Scriptures, 

The evidences oi^ delusioji on the part of those immedi- 
ately concerned in the papers published in the Appeal, 
are such as to render it imperious on eYery member of the 
Society of Friends, to take notJiing on the bare authority 
of those individuals, and of their supposed revelations. — 
They must come directly to the Scriptures for doctrine? 
and not to George Fox. Whatever he held or v/hatever 
he did, that was according to the Scriptures,.! vvould with 
all readiness approve. But I would not agree that he 
2B 



210' PROCliEDINaS ANJJ i'Ki:\'CiPLES OF 

was in the same spirit and power that the Apostles were' 
in. I Avould not unite with those who suppose that all 
Creation was open to him — or that he vcrought 'miracles ^ 
detected zoitches^ or cast out devils,'^ I believe, to use the 
language of R. B., " it wi.ts both wicked and abominable," 
to suppose that he was "The Son of God" o^r ^%efore lan- 
guage were" — or the "Bread" of Life," the "Fountain^ ©^f 
Life."— The "Father of Eternal Felicity"— "the Second 
Appearance of him who is blessed forever." And I think 
it is a disgrace to 1;he Society of Friends, and an insult to 
the good sense, and the christian feeling of the age in 
which we live, for such things as these to be openly defend- 
ed; and the maintenance of them made essential to the 
very ea?z5^?ice-of that Society. 

I am deeply impressed with the conviction that the So- 
ciety of Friends, is imperiously called upon, to make a 
thorough, christian reformation — and purge out those un- 
bound things which have so long been covered up among: 
them. To aid them in this reformation, as well as i<> 
?how them the necessity for it, I shall present them with 
*ome passages contained in the printed works of the Early 
Friends. 

But before proceeding lo quotations from the printed 
works, I think it proper to insert the following letters ; vv^hicb 
were published in tlie Appeal, as taken from the MS. 
Journal of George Fox; that they may speak far them- 
lelves, w^hether 1 have misrepresented either the letters 
or the w^riters. A dispa^ssionate examination of them, is ^ 
necessary to place the Brief Remarks of G. R. and the 
Flea of S. T. in a proper point of view. 



* For MIRACLES see the Index to the Journal, For TFi/ches^^see 
Journal 2nd ed.Lond. 1709, Part I. pp. 194, 195. For castin^r out 
Devils See Fart K p. 70^ whore it it said: "For the Lord made 
oare his Omnipotent Arm, and manifested his power to the aston- 
.■"yhrnentof many; by the healing virtue whereof many have been de- 
jivered from great iniirmities, and the Devils were made subject 
through his Name, of which particular instances might be given 
ueyond what this unbelieving age is able to receive or bear." 



TilY. SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 211 

Lettei' from Margaret Fell and others to George Fox: MS, 
Journah 

for g. f. {i^) 

Our dear ffather in the Lord for tliough wee have ten 
thousand Instructors in Christ, yei have we not many 
fathers for in Christ Jesus thou hast hegotten us thorrow 
the Gospell, eternall praises be to our father, wee thj 
l)abes with one consent being gathered together in the 
power of the spirit thou being present with us our souls 
doth thirst &l languish after thee, & doth challenge that 
right that wee have in thee, O thou bread of life, without 
which bread our soulls will starve, oli for ever more give 
us this bread &l take pittj on us, whom thou hast nursed 
up with the brests of consolation, oh our life our desires is 
to see thee againe that wee may be refreshed & estab- 
lished & goehave hfe more abundantly, & let not that 
beastly power which keepes us in bondage seperate thy 
bodyly presence from us, who reignes as King above it, 
«& would reioyce to see thy kingly power here triumph 
over it, oh our dear nursing father wee hope thou wilt 
not leave us Comfortlesse, but will come againe, though 
that sorrow be for A time, yat ioy comes in the morning, 
oh our life we hope to see thee againe, that our ioy may 
be full, for in thy presence is fullness of ioy, & where 
thou dwells is pleasures for evermore, oh thou fountaine 
of eternall life our soulls thursts after thee, for. in thee 
alone is our life and peace, &l without thee have we no 
peace for our soulls is much refreshed by seeing thee, & 
pur lifes is preserved by thee, O thou father of eternall 
i'elicytie. 

Margrett fFell 
Tho: Salthouse 
Ann Cleaton 
Mary Askew 
Margrett ffell 
Bridgett ffell 
Will: Caton 



212 rROr'EEDINGS AND PRINCiPLES OF 

O my dear ffaiher when wil': thou come^ Susan ffell, 

Dear ffather pray for us Sarah ffeJl 

Oh iTij dear hart shall wee not see thee once more againe 

Issabellffl^ll 
Thou ar} the foimtaine of hfe Mary fTcli 

My owne dear hart, though thou ha,s shaked " the dust 
of thy feet, at him who would not receive thee, nor is not 
worthy of thee, which shall be A testimony agt. him for 
ever, yet thou knowes that we have received thee into 
our harts, &l shall live v/ith thee eternally, & it is our 
life and ioy to be with thee, And soe my dear hart let not 
the power of darkenesse seperate ilij bodyly presence 
from us which will be A greefe & trouble to us, <& espe- 
cially thorrov/ him, v/hom thou knowes can call nothing 
his owne but the plagues & woes. 

My soull thiirsts to have thee to come over, if it but for 
two or three da.y iire downe the deccite in him for 

the truthes sake. 

And if thou doe not come, it will add abundantly to our 
sorrow & strengthen the beastly power, 1 know it is A 
burden & suffering to thee, but thou hast borne our bur- 
dens & suffered for us & with us, & now dear hart doe 
not leave us nor forsake us, for our life & peace is in thee. 

Mff 
1652 

Under this, in George Fox's writing is the following 
note :- — 

this was sent to gff 

<fe he came ba.ck a^gaine 

to thes that sent for him 

& he, that he shakd the 

dost of hise feet aggainst v/as 

not long after convin 

sod 



THE SOCIETY OF FItTENDS. 213 

Accoiiat of George Fox's letter lo Oliver Cromwell^ as given 
in the MS. Journal, 

"Upon the 5th day first month Captain e Drewry who 
brought G fFup to London by order from Colonell Hag- 
gar did come to the Inn into the Chamber where G ff lay 
and said it wa,s required of G fFfroni Oliver Crumwell, 
that hee would promise that hee would not take up a 
sword against the L^rd Protector or the Government as 
it is now And that G ff would write downe the. words in 
answer to that which the protector required, and for G 
ff to set his hand to it the fifth day of the first month: G 
ff was moved of the Lord to give out these vv-ords following 
which were given to Oliver Crumwell and G IF was then 
presently brought before him by Captn Drewry.' 

George Fox's letter to Oliver Cromwell, 

"I who am of the world called George ffox, doe deny 
the carrying or drawing of any carna,il sword agt any, or 
agt thee Oliver Crumwell or any man in the presence of 
the lord god I declare it god is my wittnesse, by whom I 
am moved to give this forth for the truthes sake, from him 
whom the world calls George ifox who is the son of God, 
who is sent to stand A wittnesse agt all violence, & agt all 
the workes of darkenesse, and to turne people from the 
darkenesse to the, light, & to bring them from the occas- 
sion of the warre, and from the occassion of the magis- 
trates sword, which is A terrour to the evilldoers which 
actes contrary to the light of the lord Jesus Xt, which is A 
praise to them that doe well, which is A protection to them 
that doe well, and not,, the evill and such souidies that are 
putt in that place, no false accussers must bee, no violence 
must doe, but bee content with their wages, and that mag- 
istrate beares not the sword in vaine, from under the oc- 
casion of that sw^ord I — doe seeke to bring people, my 
p'eapons are not carnall but spirituall. And my kingdome 



214 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

is not of this world, there fore with the carnall weapon I 
doe not fight, but am from those things dead, from him 
who is not of the world, called of the world by the name 
George ffox, and this I am ready to scale wdth my blood, 
and this I am moved to give forth for the triithes sake, who 
A wittncsse stands agt all unrightcousnessc, and all ungod- 
Jynessc, wdio A sufferer is for the righteous seed sake, 
waiteing for the redemption of it, who A croAvne that is 
mortall seekcs not for, that fadeth away, but in the light 
dwells, which comprehends that Crowne, which light is 
the condemnacon of all such, in wch Light I wittnesse 
the Crowne that is Lnortall that fades not away. From 
him who to all your soulls is A friend, for establishing of 
rightcousnesseand cleansseing the Land of evill doers, and 
A wittnesse agt. all wicked inventions of men & murder- 
ous plotts wch Answered shall bee with the Light in all 
your Conscienr es, which makes no Covenant with death, 
to which light in you all I speake, & am clear 

ff G 
who is of the world called George fFox 
who A new name hath which the 
world knowes not 
Wee are wittncsses of this Testimony 
whose names in the flesh is called 
Tho AJdam Robert Creven 

Later ofM, F. to J. JV, 

Szcarthmo7x L5//i of ye 8 month (56) 
J) car Brother 

I have received thy letter and it was gladness to me 
when I received it, and I could receive and bear wt. thou 
had written in it if thou had kept in subjection love and 
^mity as thou did express in thy Letter, But since I have 
heard that thou would not be subject to him to whom all 
nations shall bow, it hath greeved my spiritt Thou hath 
confessed him to be thy Father and thy life bound up m 



' THE SOCIETY OF ^RIE^DS; 215 

him and when hee sent for thee and thou would not come 
to him where was thy life then; v,^as thou not then ban- 
ished from the Fathers House, as thou knows thou hath 
writ to mee And jt wch shewed thee this wch was ta 
corne I owne, but that wch banished thee I must deny and 
when he bended his Knees to ye most high god for the 
Seed's sake and thou would not bend nor bow nor Joync 
with him, How wilt thou answer this to him who hath 
given him a name Better then every name to wch every 
Knee must bow This is contrary to what thou wrett to 
nie where thou saith he is burin g thy name that hee may 
raise his owrie but it was thy name yt stood agst him then 
And thou wrett to me ye truth should never suffer by thee 
for where ye seed Suffers the Truth suffers doth not ye 
seed <fe all ye body suffer by yt spiritt yt houlds not the 
head But rebells against him; oh consider what thou art 
dding I am sure ye lamb in his suffering is in subjection 
not resisting nor exalting but in the time of his Suffering 
hee is servant to all ye seed and if Thou stood in ye suf- 
fering for ye seed thou had not resisted him w^ho is the 
prmise of the Father to ye seed who hath said blessed are 
ye yt are not offended in me, oh deare heart mind while 
it is called to day wt thou art doeing. I^east thou waike 
naked and be a stumbling blocke to the simple & bee 
tender of the truth which thou hath [not legible] before & 
suffered for, which draws thyne eare from unclean spiritts 
wch is like frogs which cometh out of the Mouth of the 
dragon ye Beast and the false P.fitt these v>'as scene when 
the first Angel poured out his vial upon ye great river 
Euphrates read and understand and return to thy first hus- 
band my deare brother, 1 can beare all y t hath been past, 
if thou wilt be subject to ye will of the Father & hee who 
doth ye will hath Learned obedience & is subject & I 
could ly downe at thy feete yt thou might tram.ple upon 
me for thy good & soe 1 know would hee whom thou 
hath resisted though to yt spiritt yt rebels it cannot bee 



ililG rilOCEEDIiXGS D Ai\rilIiVtCirJL,ES OF 

for that is not one Vv'th ye father, soe in dearness & ten- 
derness have I written to thee my Father shall bear me 
witness and 1 warn thee from the Lord God yt thou he- 
ware of siding wich unclean spirits Least thou bee cut of 
for ever, I^et me heare from thee shortly as thou can after 
the receite of this 

Thy dear Sister in the 
eternal love 

M. F. 
I wrett to thee after I had 
i-eceived thy Letter whch 

ma,y bee may come to thee after this hut then 
I did not know of this 

My husband tooke some letters from tYiefeeld post which 
was to me which mentioned the difference between G and 
thee & he read them 

Letter from Ann Curtis to George Fox^ from MS, JournaL 
■ . Reading the 23 of the 5th Month 1660. 

DearcG, F. 

Pvly true faithfull & inexpressible love is to thee, 
deare thou art to me, fare beyound what lean declare doe 
I greatly love, & highly honour thee with my soule & 
with my whole heart am I freely given up to be thine, to 
doe thy will in all that I can, if my life would be an ex- 
ceptabic sacrifise for or to thee I have freely given it up 
& it would be mj greatest Joy if I might be Accepted 
for thee, Oh there is nothing soe deare to me as thou art, 

what shall I say for my heart is rafeshed & I am over- 
come with thy love, & the exlency of thy beauty that my 
desire is after thee in thee is the everlasting being, the 
fullnesse &l fountain of eternity in thy presents is life, O 
my deare father, blesse me with ihj presents & grant that 

1 may live with thee forever & be cload with thy righte- 
ousnesse which is my true desire who am thine true and 
faithfully & I beleeve soe shall continue unto the end 
thine A. C. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 217 

Letter from Thomas Lower to George and Margaret Fox: 

MS* Journal, 
Dear & ever honored ffather & mother 

Yours of ye: 24 of ye 12th. wee received, & our 
hearLes and soules doth praise & magnify ye: name of ye: 
Lorde for his abundant mercy es & favours tovv^ards us all 
& as oft: as wee think off ye: overuleing arme & power 
yt: sett my ffather on toppe off all his & truths adversa- 
ry es: &L wrought his deliverance after such a noble & 
honorable manner wee cannott but ascribe ye: praise & 
glory thereof unto himwhoe rules In ye: heavens above; 
& in ye: earth beneath doth whatsoever pleases him: whoe 
drew pharoh & his hoast to follow ye: Isra,lites Into ye: 
way prepared for there safe passage: & then ealed to ye: 
waters to returne & destroy yt harde hearted persecuter: 
even soe hath hee suffered these blinde & harde hearted 
ones to persecute & pursue our deare ffather as farre as 
they in there envy coulde goe : & then when hee saw fitt 
hath caled to ye: waters to returne*& come over: ye: 
horse & Its rider our Justices & there beast-like clarke: 
glory bee unto ye: Lorde for ever: who caused Moses & 
ye: Isralites to beholde ye: deade carkasses of there ene- 
myes: and to rejoyce over them and singe ye: songe of de- 
liverance even soe hath hee caused our Moses &: all ye: 
true upright Isralites: to beholde his & truths adversayes 
defeated and slaine & to ly as deade carkases: before ye: 
feet of our Moses & his people: & therefore our heartes 
are engaged to singe praises unto ye: Lorde whoe is our 
deliverer now as hee was his peoples In ages past: praises: 
praises: honnor glory & renowne bee unto ye: Lambe 
yt: Sittethupon yc: throne for ever & for evermore Amen 
saith my soule : 

Wee are all well heere praised bee ye : Lorde My wife 
something better since shee tooke some off my pills: little 
margarett a lovely thriveinge childe; wee greatly re- 
joyce to heare of our sister Rouses happy deliverance: 
2C ^ ■ 



218 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

and good houre wherein my ffatber visited lier: whose 
company is ablessinge to all jt: see knowe and receive 
him as he is ablessinge to ye: nations and ye: Joy off his 
people: ye: second appearance of him whoe Is blessed 
for ever: 

We greatly rejoyce to heare off your Inclinations Into 
these parts: & If my ffatber intends to come before ye: 
general meetings: I desire to heare by ye: return of ye: 
next post thereof yt: I mD.y provide ye: [some kind of car- 
riage^ the name of which cannot easily be made out] to meet 
jou att Westchester, &c. [The rem,ainder relates to fam-^ 
il^ matters^ Soe rests 

Your dearly loveing Son ^ 

Thomas Lower > 

Swarthmore this 4th of ye: 1st mo th 167| y 

The monstrous sentiments contained in these letters, in 
so many varied forms of expression, through a period of 
23 years, must be shocking to every sincere christian^ 



CHAPTER. IX 



In the notice already taken of these pamphlets, (The 
Brief Remarks and Plea,) which have been industriously 
circulated, I have passed over some passages, which are 
more conveniently answered a part from the refutation of 
the principal arguments, on which the respective writers 
relied. 

George Richardson, without the least foundation, has 
endeavoured to convey the idea, that I do not hold the 
doctrine of the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit on 
the human mind. Thus he says at page 9. "E. Bates'« 
remarks on the sorrows which George passed through arc 
most extraordinary. He has adopted Water Baptism. — 
Does he mean really to undervalue — is he about to speak 
disparagingly of the true and essential baptism of Christ 
(the dispensation which George Fox was passing through 
at the time alluded to, evidently being of this character — ) 
as though these conflicts were evidence of unsoundness of 
faith in the article of Justification," 

And why, I ask, did he introduce the subject of- Water 
Baptism here? The connection explains the object. It 
was to prove that I did not believe in the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit. But I ask, if such an argument as this, is 
not an insult to the whole christian Church, to the Apos- 
tles themselves, and to Him also, under whose commission 
and in whose name they commanded the converts to Chris- 
tianity to be baptized? 

But in answer to G. R's. enquiry, I will tell him no. 
I certainly do not mean, and never did mean — nor did 
the Apostles or primitive believers mean, to -undervalue 



'320 PIlOCiSEDINGS AND rRINCIPLES OF , 

or speak disparagingly of the Baptism oftiie H0I7 Spirit. 

But he confidently asserts that the sorrows of George 
Fox were of this character ! And here I must take the 
liberty of remarking, that G. R. showshimself as ignorant 
of the Baptism of the Spirit, as he is hostile to the doc- 
trine and practice of the Apostles. Let the reader ex- 
amine the examples given in the New Testament, of the 
Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and see if he can find in them 
the least resemblance to the sorrozvs of George Fox. In 
the 2nd ed. of the Journal, part 1. p. 31, he says: "And 
after some time, I went into my own country again, and 
was there about a year, in great sorrows and Troubles, 
and walked many nights by myself.*' And after going 
from Priest to Priest to seek for comfort, but finding in- 
crease of Trouble and sorrow he says: "After this I went 
to another, one Macham, a priest in high account. And 
he would needs give me some physic, and I w^as to have 
been let blood." Here it is evident, his adviser thought 
him labouring under some physical malady. "But [says 
he] they could not get one drop of Blood from me, either 
in my arms or head (though they endeavoured it) my body 
being, as it were, dried up with sori'ows, grief and trou- 
bles." p. 32. 

Do we find the Apostles, and others who were assembled 
on the Day of Penticost, "in great sorrows and troubles," 
by the out pouring of the Holy Spirit upon them? Did 
they go from Priest to Pjiest, to inquire what was the 
matter witii them? Did they endeavour to get cured of 
the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, by taking physic, and 
getting bled? Were they so dried up with sorrows, 
grief and troubles, as the effect of that Baptism, that a 
drop of blood could not have been got out of them either 
in their arms or heads? Ought not the Society of 
Friends to blush for shame, not only that their ministers 
should represent this as the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
but that a Pamphlet containing such a representation 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 221 

should be approved and sent out by thousands among their 
members? 

George Fox says: "But Temptations grew more and 
more, and I was tempted almost to despair. And when 
Satan could not effect his design upon me that way, then 
he laid snares for me, and baits to draw me to commit some 
sin, whereby he might take advantage to bring me to des- 
pair," part 1. p. 30. And again: "I was about twenty 
years of age when these exercises came upon me; and 
some years I continued in that condition, in great troubles^ 
and fain I would have put it from me." — ib. 

Now I ask the true christian, if this was evidently ^he 
baptism of the Spirit? Was this the joy and peace of be- 
lieving? 

The Baptism of the Spirit is to be distinguished not only 
from the besetments of Temptation, but from those oper- 
ations of the Spirit, by which Temiptation is discovered, 
the snares of the devil laid open, and a sense of the sinful- 
ness of sin, and its deep demerit, powerfully impressed up- 
on the heart. It is no where said, that the multitude who 
assembled on the day of Pentecost, were baptized- with 
the Spirit, when they were pricked in their hearts, and 
inquired of the Apostles — what shall w^e do? But Peter 
told them to "Repent and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, ./^nc? 
ye SHALL receive the gift of the Holy GhostJ''' It is not said 
that Paul was baptized with the Holy Ghost, at the time 
that he saw the Lord Jesus by the way — nor during the 
three days that he fasted and prayed in Damascus. But 
Ananias was sent to him, that he might receive his sight, 
be baptized, and "be filled with the Holy Ghost." Then, 
and not till then, did he enjoy this high privilege. 

And now, the Friends, ministers and others, instead of 
keeping to the simple and clear views of this doctrine, as 
presented in the Holy Scriptures, are adapting their ideas 
of it to the example of -George Fox, v>^hen he was, from, his 



'222 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

own accoiini;, for years, under strong temptations which 
he could not put from him; and when he was in an ex- 
tremely disordered state of mind. 

G. R. says: "IfG. Fox's mind had not been frequent- 
ly in an excited state, especially in the year 1652 [the 
date of Margaret Fell's letter to him] he must have been 
more than human," Rrief Remarks p. 7. Then why, I 
ask, should he quarrel with me, for suggesting that he 
was at times in a state of mental excitement? 

Again, in the same page, he says: "How dare these 
apostatizing friends thus attempt to vilify and calumniate 
the character of such a man?" — ib. 

If G. R. had not been blinded by the smoke of his own 
zeal, he might have seen that I neither vilified nor cal- 
umniated the character of G. Fox. I published a few 
papers from his manuscript Journal, which G. R. who 
once had that MS. in his possession, fully admits to be 
genuine. And I apologized for G. F. by supposing that 
he might have been, at times, in a state of mental excite- 
ment. And G. R. says if this had not been the case, he 
would have been more than human. And in addition to 
all this, he tells us that the ''real fad^^ appears to be — 
what? Why, that the cfise ofG. F. and his friends, was 
of the same character with that of Nayler and his delud- 
ed followers!!! 

G. R. in connection with his passionate, but ill-timed 
and ill directed inquiry first quotted, goes on to ask: 
"Was the work in which he [G. F.] was engaged, of man, 
or of God." I answer, that whatever good things G. 
Fox might have done or said (from which I never wished 
to detract in the least degree) no man in his sober senses 
can suppose it was the work of God, to write, or to sanc- 
tion, or now to defend, such things as are contained in the 
letters published in the Appeal. And G. R. and the 
Friends are mistaken in their estimate of the understand- 
ing of the age in wluch we live, if they think that such 



THE socihty of friends. 223 

gross delusions, can be passed off as the fruit of the Spirit, 
and the work of God. 

"I have ah^eady proved" says he, "tmd it is universally 
allowed that the doctrines taught by George Fox, when 
faithfully put in practice, do produce good fruit." Brief 
Remarks p. 9. 

Then why are not his doctrines universally adopted — 
at least by the sincerely pious? I fhy good fruity he means 
morality, in the common sense of the term, and by the 
doctrines, he means only some of the doctrines taught by 
George Fox, he has said what amounts to 7iothing for his 
purpose. But if by doctrines he intends to include ail 
that G. F. held and taught, and by good fruits, he means 
both faith and practice in general terms, his assertion is 
not true in either of its parts. Neither has he proven it, 
nor is it universally allowed. To say that G. Fox taught 
some or even many good things, is what I never denied. — 
But I object to some things which were held by G. F. and 
the Early Friends, and I published the letters &:c. con- 
tained in the Appeal, to show that we cannot ?xcept the 
whole of what they said and did, as correct. This point 
is now established beyond contradiction. Then a dis- 
crimination, and separation of the good from the bad, is 
the imperious duty of the Society. But the moment this 
position is allowed — that investigation and discrimination 
are admitted — the detection of errors will follow in rapid 
succession. The Conservative Friends know this; and 
therefore their utmost exertions are used to stop inquiry — 
to shut up the minds of their members against conviction 
— and to prevent the very grossest mistakes, and most 
palpable errors, both in Faith and Practice, from being 
represented in their real character, or acknowledged to 
be wrong. Nothing is too shocking to be palliated or even 
directly defended, lest the work of discrimination should 
begin, and the members of the Society, encouraged to 
tMnk for themselves, should bring the opinions and prac- 
tices of their fore-fathers to the test of Holy Scripture, 



224 PROCEEDINGS AND PRlNCirLES OF 

The contest nov/ is, in the first place, for the Vindica- 
tion on the one hand, and the exposure on the other, of 
the grossly unsound, and unscriptural parts of the writ- 
ings of G. Fox and his cotemporaries. The Society, in 
its official character, has recognized and recommended, 
the writings of the Early Friends without exception. 
And I have shown that they wrote many things utterly 
incompatible with Christianity, and subversive of its 
most important doctrines. But the Society, has made 
it a disownable offence, to call the writings of G. Fox 
in question. And George Richardson and Samuel Tuke 
have come forward to defend him and Early Friends 
in cases which must astonish the Christian world. 

Perhaps it may be said, that G. R. and S. T. both gave 
up the Letter of M. Fell and others, as highly objectiona- 
ble. 

But I ask, do G. Richardson or S. Tuke admit that G. 
Fox or any of the writers of those letters were in error? 
Do they give up one iota of their claims to revelation^ when 
writing those grossly oilensive things? No. The great 
object of both these writers, is io justify George Fox and 
the Early Friends. To what purpose then is the pretend- 
ed admission of the objectionable character of the Letter 
of Margaret Fell, and others? The letter contains very 
objectionable expressions — say these apologists, but the 
writers were not to blame. And even though they claim- 
ed to be gathered in the power of the spirit — yet no idea 
is to be entertained of their being under a delusion. — The 
writing was wrong, but not the writers. And then to 
cap the climax, the Society has made it a ground of dis- 
ownment to call in question the soundness of those writ- 
ing!!! 

George Richardson thinks I overshoot the mark by say- 
ing, in a Note in the Appeal, "As to the martyrdom of 
one thousand Christians at Lichfield, in the time of the 
Emperor Dioclesian, I have not been able, after consider- 



I 



TIIS SOCIETY OF FrasNDS. 225 

able research, to find any foim<lcilion for the story. This 
historical fact, he says, is supported by the most unques- 
tionable evidence.— 

But what,^! ask, if it be so? Suppose we grant that 
there vias foundation for the scory — it only follows that I 
had .notybimo? it. And George Richardson may claim 
the credit of more extensive^ researches than / had ever 
made. And most readily do I concede to him the palm 
that is due to his erudition. But this has nothing to do 
with my objection to the conduct of George Fox, at Lich- 
field. The doubt which I had' of the truth of the story, 
was merely suggested in a JVo^e. It was the transaction 
itself, proceeding as it did, on the high claims to revela- 
tion, tha-t I wished to present to the view of the Friends, 
as anexample ofm2;5toA:e, in taking the wild fancies of 
imagination^ for immediate revelation. And I again Ap- 
peal, not only to the Friends, but to the Christian public, 
if they can believe that George Fox was directed by re- 
velation — and not by imagination, in that extraordinary 
business? 

First he says: "And as I was one time walking in a 
close [or field] with several Friends, I lift up my head, 
and I espied three steeple-house spires: and they. struck at 
my life. And I askt friends what they was, and they 
said Lichfield, ^o the word of the Lord came to me, 
thither I might go." 1 think the indications of a disor- 
dered mind, meet us at the very commencement of the 
narrative. 

He proceeds: "And I bid friends that wa,s with me 
walk into the house from me, and they did. And as soon 
as they was gOne,-for I said nothing to them whether I 
would go; but I went over hedge a.nd ditch till I came 
within a mile of Lichfield, and when I came into a great 
field where there was shepherds keeping their shecpe, I 
was commanded of the Lord to put off my shoes of a 
sudden. And I sto©d still, and the word of the Lord was 
2D 



226 PROCEEDINGS A^'D PRIXCIPLES OF 

like a fiic in me. And being winter, I untied my shoes 
and put them off. And when I had done, I was com- 
manded to give them to the shepherds, and v/as to charge 
them to let no one have them except they paid for them. 
And the poor shepherds trembled and were astonished." 
Here are at least three special revelations. And coming 
over hedge and ditch (he docs not tell us how far, but as 
it would seem a considerable distance) he had, no doubt^ 
become quite warm — and this he supposed was the Word 
of the Lord in him. It is not at all surprising that the 
Shepherds, seeing him coming over hedge and ditch, and 
acting in all respects as strangely as he did, should trem- 
ble and be astonished. It was an age of superstition. G. 
F. tell, in his Journal, of a great woman that thought he 
was an angel or spirit, when he went into a place o-f 
public worship — and he relates several cases in which 
the people thought the house shook where he was. And 
in another place in his Journal, he says he spake through 
Kendal upon a marked day; "And so dreadful was the 
power of God that was upon me, that the people flew 
like chaff before me into their houses." On another oc- 
casion he says, "The power of God thundered amongst 
.them, and they did fiy like chaff before it." And in an- 
other place he says: "So that it was a dreadful thing 
unto them, when it was told them, The man in Leathern 
Breeches iscome*^.^ 

But to proceed, he says: "And so I went about a 
mile till I came into the town. And as soon as I came 
within the town the Word of the Lord came unto me 
again to cry Yv"o unto the bloody City of Lichfield. So 
I went up and down the streets crying Wo unto the 
bloody city of Lichfield. And being market day, I went 
into the market place, and went up and down in several 
places of it, and made stands crying Wo unto the bloody 
City of Lichfield. And no one hushed me, or laid hands 
off me." 



THE SOCIETY OF PFtlENDS. , 227 

But what effect did this Yvonderfal exhibition produce? 
No body seems to have been frightened— no one run 
away — the man with the leathern breeches, passed with-^ 
out interruption — but some of the most considerate, 
wondered what had become of his shoes! He says in 
immediate connection with the foregoing quotation: "And 
so at last, some friends and friendly people ca,me to me 
and said, Alack George where is thy shoes? And I told 
them it was no matter." Whoever would have thought 
of such a. sequel to such an exhibition! Both his con- 
duct, and the manner of relating it, show that his mind, 
was under the influence of a most singular excitement. 

He proceeds: "So when I had declared what was upon 
me, and cleared myself, I came out of the tov* n in peaxe; 
about a mile to the Shepherds. And there I went to 
them, and took my shoes, and gave them some money. 
And the fire of the Lord was so in niiy {qqI, and all over 
me, that I did not matter to put my shoes on any more, 
and was at a stand whether I should or no, till I felt free 
riom from the Lord." 

Here was another rev elation to wear his shoes again. 
And the heat that was produced in his feet, and ' all over 
him, by this singular proceeding-r-while every boy in the 
streets, could have told him the cause of^it — he supposed 
to be the ^ Fiir. of the Lord — So thoroughly was his mind 
carried away with this notion of extraordinary divine in- 
fluence. 

That he was sincere, I never doubted. But I think — ■ 
and in this, I shall not be alone — that he v^^as mistaken in 
regard to these supposed Revelations. He was evidently 
carried away with the flashes of imagination, while sober 
judgment, appcar3-.to have exercised no controul over his 
feelings. 

But this is not all, for he says in the subsequent part of 
his story, "But as I went down the tov^'^n. There run like 
a channel of blood down, the streets, and the market 



2*28 ' PROCEEDINGS AND PRIKOIPLE* OF 

place was like a pool of blood. This I saw as I went 
through it crying Wo to the bloody city of Lichfield." 
And now the Friends arc required to believe all these 
special revelations, and this vision of Blood, and all the con- 
duct connected with them, as being the result of immediate, 
divine influence; and the terrors of the disowning powers 
of the Society, are held up over them to extinguish every 
doubt upon the subject! How, I ask, in the present en- 
lightened age, can the intelligent members of the Society 
submit to these things, or hold up their heads among 
their well informed neighbours! 

It was after G. F. had washed his feet in a ditch, and 
put on his shoes, that he began to consider, why lie 
should go and cry against that city, and call it that bloody 
city, for he does not seem to have thoughtof the inquiry 
before. He now recollected that much blood had been 
shed there in the civil wars, but a short time before this 
— ''yeV^ says he, "that could not be charged upon the 
town?" Many of the actors in those scenes i)f blood were 
no doubt still alive. He does not tell us why, but he re- 
leases the town from all blood-guiltiness on that account, 
though it had occurred but a few years before, and for 
any thing that we know — some of the blood might have 
been still visible, in some of their houses. 

It was after this, as we are informed, that G. F. 
"came to see that there was 1000 martyrs in Dioclesians 
time w^as martyred in Lichfield. And so I must go in my 
stockings through -the channel of their blood, and come 
into the pool of their blood in their market place. So I 
mrght raise up the blood of those martyrs that had been 
shed, and lay cold in their streets which had been shed 
above 1000 years before." 

But admitting the story of martyrdom to be true — how 
was that blood lo be charged upon the town, when the 
blood which had been shed only a few years, could not? 
As G. F. has not explained this mystery, I confess I do 
not see how any one else can. 



fllE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 229 

G. F. says the pei-seciition under Dioclesian was "above 
1000 years" before his visit to Lichfield. Dioclesian re- 
signed the Empire in the year 305.* And G. Fox's visit 
to Lichfield was in i65L It was no grea^t matter, to be 
sure, to mistake the date of the tenth Persecution, by a 
few hundred years. But now as to the certainty of the 
T-iichfield Martyrdom. 

George Richardson, refers to Camden — to Dr. John- 
son's Dictionary, and to Aytlett Sammes. But after re- 
turning my acknowledgments to him, for the light he has 
shed upon the subject, from "the Antiquities of Ancient 
Britain" by A. Sammes, I must still confess that my 
doubts of the truth of the story are not at all removed. 
And howeverG. R. and the Friends, who I dare say depend 
more upon G. Fox's revelations in the case, than on the 
evidence of History, ma.y look down with contempt upon 
jny ignorance, I am not ashamed of the company in 
which I am found, in regard to this matter. 

Eusebius who gave an account of the Dioclesian per- 
secution, both at Rome, and in distant countries, and 
whose means of information exceeded those of all other 
historians whose works are now extant, is entirely silent 
upon this" important matter. And I conceive it to be al- 
together unreasonable to suppose that the murder of one 
thousand christians in a single town, should not be ex- 
tensively known, and receive a place in history, while 
the death of single individuals, and those in some cases 
obscure persons, should be so carefully preserved. I 
refer to Eusebius's History, as one written not very long 
after the persecution in question, by a man of extensive 
information. 

Neither Mosheim, Milner, nor Jones, three able writers 
of Ecclesiastical History, has ventured to record the Lich- 
field Martyrdom, as an historical fad,) or even to name 

*See Milner's Church History, in one Vol. Edinburgh ed- 1883, 
p. 201, 



230 PROCEEDINGS AND PRmCIPLES OF 

it. Nor is this all. The celehratcd John Fox, who 
flourished in the reign of queen Elizabeth, compiled a 
"Universal History of Christian Martyrdom," in which 
his biographer says he v.^as engaged, "with prodigious 
pains, and constant study — eleven years." This work 
was written a,bout a hundred years before G. Fox went 
barefoot through Lichfield. " And yet it takes no notice 
of this wonderful martyrdom. E. Blomfield wrote a 
"History of the Martyrs, or an authentic narrative of the 
Sufferings of the Church of Christ in every part of the 
world." It forms two quarto volumes, one of 652, and 
the other of 544 pages. Yet no mention is made of the 
event in question. I could mention other historians of ac- 
knowledged merit, who, as it would seem, were not wilt- 
ing lo risk their reputation, l)y giving it a place in their 
respective histories. 

While therefore G. Richardson and other Friends, wilj 
regard the truth of the story of the martyrdom, as an 
evidence of the certainty of G. Fox's revelations in the 
case, I shall take the liberty of entertaining doubts in re- 
gard to the thousand martyrs,Tegarding it as a mere Ro- 
man legend, which found its way into the writings of 
some men, whose credulity was greater than the sound- 
ness of their judgment. In reference to the conduct of 
George Fox, entirely independent of the truth or false- 
hood of the story — I believe it to have been a striking 
case of delusion, and a practical comment on his notion of 
Revelation. 

Near the close of his defence of G. F., the writer of 
Brief Remarks, inquires: "But what will the world gain 
— what will any individual gain — if these dessentients 
should succeed in destroying Quakerism!" pp. 15, IC. . 

In reply to this inquiry, I will ask, what of Quaker- 
ism have I ever attempted to destroy, but manifest cor- 
ruptions? If these corruptions constitute the very essence 
of Quakerism, which I am almost persuaded now to be- 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 231 

lieve — let it be destroyed^ and the sooner the better for the 
Friends themselves, and for the world at large. It is true, 
that there is nothing valuable in Quakerism, that was 
not in Christianity long before Quakerism existed. But 
there are many things in the latter that never were, and 
never will be in the former. The plea, the -appeal, the 
ea.rnest expostulation of George Richardson, is not for 
Christianity — but for Quakerism^— and for those gross 
errors, or forms of expression, if he please, which are not 
only totally incompatible with Christianity but totally 
subversive of it. And what can he or the Friends^ gain by 
defending, and retaining those corruptions, in the bosom 
of Society ? As respects the Society, it must be fatal to 
its character, if not to existence — and as relates to individ- 
uals — may God have mercy upon them! 

G. R. says: ''The working of this subtle spirit which 
has got abroad; this old accuser of the Brethren — has been 
very insiduous; it has been at work for many years — but 
durst not avow its real object and character. It pretend- 
ed it was attacking Hicksism, but it was easy to see, long 
ago, that genuine Quakerism Wcis meant. It is now throw- 
ing off the mask, and shoving itself in its real colours." 
lb. p. 16. 

Now I think, in all candour, that the mask is pretty 
fully thrown off here. The many years, smd the language, 
necessarily carry us back, not only through the heat of 
the controversy about the doctrines of Elias Hicks, but to 
the very rise of that controversy. G. R. saw long ago 
ihzitge7imne Quakerism was meant by those who called the 
trinesofE. Hicks in question. I ca,n honestly say that 
I was not aware of the fact at the time. But I am con- 
vinced of it now. And I freely acknowledge that it is so. 
And I do most earnestly wish that George Richardson 
may convince the whole body of Friends, as fully as I am 
convinced, that instead of Hicksism — instead of any jiew 
iAm^ that we were then contending agciinst, it was no 



232 pHinciples and phoceedings of 

other than genuine Quakerism. His arguments, I think, 
are conclusive on this point, much as he has failed to prove 
that G. Fox, Margaret Fell, and the others mentioned in 
the Appeal, were divinely inspired, when they wrote the 
monstrous things contained in the exti-acts from the MS. 
Journal. 

To complete his ohjcct G. R. undertakes a formal de- 
fence of Isaac Pennington's Incitation, Penn's Sandy 
Foundation Shaken, and Barcla,y's Vehiculum Dei. For 
a further notice of these pieces, I refer the reader to the 
following Chapter. But for the present, I only say, that 
the open, unqualified vindication of these parts of the 
writings above named, is an open and direct vindication 
of the doctrines of Elias Hicks. 

The passage from I. P. which I shall give hereafter, jje- 
presents Jesus, as the garment of Christ, and distinguishes 
between him that came, and the body in which he came; 
between the outward vessel, and the inward life. And 
makes this strong declaration: "This we certainly know, 
and can never call the bodily ga.rment Christ, but that 
which appeared and dwelt in the body." That is, the 
inward life^ as distinguished from the outward vessel. I 
stated in the work to which G. Richardson referred, 
that the whole passage did convey the doctrines of E. H. 
on the point in question. This he does not pretend to 
deny. And he undertakes to vindicate the doctrine. 
That it was called Hicksism, every intelligent member of 
the Society to which that epithet was applied, will fully 
prove. That it is genuine Quakerism, has been proved 
by George Richardson, George Jones, and many other 
Friends. 

G. Richardson gives a reason why George Jones pub- 
lished this extract from Pennington, in one of his Stock- 
port Tracts. He says that an extract from Pennington's 
Incitation "was previously published and widely circulat- 
ed by some Dessentients at Bristol, with the design ap- 



*niB SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 233 

parently of bringing the writings of I. P. and other early 
Friends, into contempt, which induced a friend at Man- 
chester, to print it more at length, with a view of allow- 
ing the writer to explain his own views more fullj." p. 
17. 

But George Jones did not even intimate that the ad- 
ditional passages which he selected, changed the view 
which would be given by that published at Bristol. The 
more extended extract was given not as a change^ but to 
confirm the sentiments contained in the smaller extract. In 
G. Jones' selection I. P. declares that they "hold forth no 
other thing for Christ^hxxi him who then" appeared, and was 
made manifest in flesh." Tract p. 3. Take this along 
with the distinction which was so positively made between 
Christy and the body in which he came, the outward ves- 
sel and the inward life, and it amounts to as positive a de- 
nial as could well ha,ve been made — of Jesus of Nazareth 
—to be the Christ. It exclusively applies the charac- 
ter of Christ to the inward Life, which is supposed to be 
in every individual, as well a§ in Jesus. 

G. R. says I have ncft made an appeal to Scripture, in 
objection to the passage from I. P. — If this had been so I 
might have replied that this was done in the former con- 
troversy — and it might have been hoped that now, the 
mere/«c^ of its being proved to be a revival of the doc- 
trine ofE. H. would have been sufficient to insure its re- 
jection on the part of those called the Orthodox. In this 
however I find myself mistaken. "Without even pretend- 
ing to deny that it was the doctrine ofE. H. (which it 
v/ould be in vain now to attempt) it is openly defended 
as genuine Quakerism. This Tract of G. Richardson's 
has been reprinted in America; large numbers have been 
sent to the western country, and no doubt to other parts of 
the U. S., and the clerk of Ohio Yccirly Meeting, during 
the late Session of that body, was seen industriously hand- 
ing it out. 

2E 



234 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

But that their duUnction 'between the charaeter ol 
Christ, and the bodily garment, may not go without a di- 
rect reply, I may remark that the Apostle says: "It was 
Christ that died^ Yea rather that is risen again." Now 
it is evident that both the death and resurrection are ap- 
plied to that which I. P. calls the bodily garment, which 
he declared they never could call Christ. Again the 
Angel said to Mary "Therefore that Holy thing which 
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" — - 
Peter said that he, the Son-of man — was "Christ, the Son 
of the living God." And after the Ascension the same 
inspired Apostle said: "Therefore let all the house of 
Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same 
Jesus whom ye have crucilied both Lord and Christ." But 
of this I shall have occasion to speak again hereafter. 

G. R. when he comes to defend the Sandy Foundation 
Shaken, shows that he was conscious he had a difficult 
cause in hand. He admits that W. P. "some times ex- 
pressed himserf in such a manner as was open to misap- 
prehension on the part of his hearers or readers. This 
has been the origin of many of the charges and accusa- 
tions which have been brought against him; and there 
cannot be a doubt but that in reference to some instances,, 
held he been aware of this danger at the time, he would 
have been more guarded in his language^" Brief Remarks 
p. 17. 

It happens however that though W. Fenn was fully ap- 
prised of this danger, by being imprisoned the very same 
year in which he wrote the Sandy Foundation Shaken — 
though the points in controversy were incessantly agitat- 
ed, jet five years afterv/ards, in his Reason against Rail- 
ing, he repeats some of the worst parts of the Sandy Foun- 
dation Shaken. Nor is this ail, he never recanted his pub- 
lished sentiments. And more than all this. The Friends 
after his death, embodied the Sandy Foundation in his 
selected \N oiks » The Sandy Foundation was printed um 



THE f^tJCIETY Uf FiUENDS. 235 

ICG'S, and in 1G71 he ultcrltj denied ihc outward person that 
suffered to he properly the Son of Go L And when his works 
were published in fol. in 1720, this shocking declaration 
was inserted, and it stands there uncorrected to the pre 
sent day. 

In regard to Barclay's Vchiculum Dei — a Latin term, 
which moans the vehicle of God, there could scarcely be 
<:onceived a notion, tha,t when carried out, would more 
completely pervert the Gospel of Christ. The reader 
will find it among the quotations in the next Chapter.- — 
But it is a most remarkable piece of consistency in 
George Richardson, after defending the Letters contain- 
ed in the Appeal, and the wildest enthusiasm to be found 
in G. Fox's MS. Journal— and virtually asserting that by 
the attack which was made upon Hicksism, genuine Qua- 
kerism was the real object assailed — he goes on to defend 
L P's. Incitation, W. P's. Sandy Foundation, and R. B's. 
Vehiculum Dei. Admit these to be correct, or any one- 
m them, and Hicksism is completely recognized^ 

It ought not to be overlooked, that when G. Richard- 
son affected to doubt whether G. Fox used the definite ar- 
tide the, in his Letter to O. Cromwell, S, Tuke very fully 
admits that he did use it. He says: "The question which 
arises upon this letter is. Did George Fox, in using the 
term, 'The Son of God,' intend to assert that he was 
Christ?" Plea, p. 4. He knew that the attempt that G. 
R. had made to induce a belief that it was written a Son^ 
could not bear examination. To resort to such a trifling 
pretence, gives no credit to the cause that could be no 
better defended. For as the copy from which the fac 
simile was taken, was verified by G. Fox's own hand, 
every body might see that there is no room for a vague 
story, of another copy, where, or by whom made, even 
G. R. himself has not ventured to tell. 

But I blame both those writers, for endeavouring to 
lower down the difference in the use of the article, in th« 



236 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

case before us, as they have done. I have not the least 
douht, that as G. F. used the article the^ and two such 
prominent ministers as S. T. and G. R. have defended 
him — many of the friends will be v^eak enough to think, 
that it made httle dilFerence whether the one or the other 
articles were used. 

S. T. after admiting that G. F. did use the definite 
article, endeavours to bring him off by supposing he "only 
designed to speak of himself as as one of the Sons of God." 
Plea, p. 5. But the very natural question arise — If he, 
intended this, why did he not say so? If such liberty as 
this is to be taken, we never can be sure of the meaning 
of any man. But how does it happen that the doctors 
disagree in the case? G.Richardson amends the letter 
hy making it read a Son, S. Tuke don't seem to like this, 
and would have it one of the Sons, and Thomias Ellwood, 
who had the whole case before him, vvdth the Widow, 
and the children to explain any matter of doubt — slipped 
silently over the passage, and said nothing of the sonship 
at all. And as he adopted neither of the modern amen- 
dations, we may take it for granted that neither of them 
was the true reading of the Letter. And that T. E. saw 
noway of getting over it, but by leaving it out altogeth- 
er. Thus these three correcters of the text, set each oth- 
ers amendations aside, while the Letter, risen, as it were 
from the dead, speaks out for itself, and tells the world 
what George Fox did say, and any man of common sense 
can tell what the language means. His ignorance then 
is his only possible defence. And I am willing that he 
should have the full benefit of this plea: and 1 am quite 
aware that it will go very far, in covering some features 
of the charge. But that Vv hich comes under the head of 
delusion it will not touch. In fact, it brings this out in 
more bold relief. He claimed such wisdom — such author- 
ity — such revelation for what he said, that now to excuse 
him from Blasphemy, by sheer ignorance, is to stamp him 
With most atvfid dehision. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS- 237 

And as it turns out, the delusion docs not rest upon a 
single mode of expression : a? the following chapter will 
show. 

Samuel Tulve in p. 9 of his Plea, has the following 
very ingenious remark; "But v/e are willing and anxious 
that the examination of the charge should not be confined to 
the consideration of the documents referred to, or to any other 
papers in which ambiguous expressions may befound.''' 

This w^as no doubt regarded as a very bright idea. It 
suggests a most convenient mode of disposing of a difficult 
case. It is no more nor less than to pass as quickly as 
possible from the documents immediately in hand — and 
from every other paper of a similar character, and to make 
out from other papers, a selection of passages that would 
look as \yq\\ as possible upon paper. S. T. accordingly 
takes up but two of the letters noticed in the Appeal, and 
passes all the rest over in silence. And for these two he 
makes the most miserable apologies. And then he goes 
off to other matters, foreign to the case in hand, to make 
out G. F. and his friends to be incapable of entertaining 
the sentiments most plainly expressed in their own writ- 
ings. By such a process as this who, I ask, might not be 
cleared from any charge whatever? What man would 
ever be convicted of a crime, if the advocate were allow- 
ed to leave the evidence immediately relating to the case, 
and take up such transactions as had never been called 
in question? Does S. T. suppose, that with the dexterity 
of a lawyer, he is to be allowed to slide off from the docu- 
ments, YQ^evredi to, in a specific case; and not only from 
these, but from all other papers of a similar character? Facts 
are stubborn things; and so are documents. But release him 
from being confined to the consideration of these- — and 
from every thing else of a similar character — release him, 
in fact, from the case immediately in hand, and he can 
easily show himself to be 

"An excellent painter who makes it his care 

"To draw men as they ought to be, not as they are." 



^^38 PnoCEEDlNOS AND I rcINCIPLES OP 

But with his Fancy Pieces, I wish to have notliing to do^ 
And though he is so willing and anxious not to be confin- 
ed to the consideration of the documents referred to, or to 
any other papers in which there are what he calls ambig- 
uous expressions, I feel myself under no obligations to in- 
dulge him in these wishes. And I call upon him to take 
up the xuhole of the documenis, contained in the Appeal, 
ajid reconcile them with sound doctrine. He has totally 
failed with those he has taken in hand, and the great body 
of them lies untouched. And in the mean time, I will of- 
fer for his consideration, afezo passages, out of the printed 
works of the Early Friends. 

Let it be remembered that it is not about the ^oo^Z things 
that were said by the Early Friends, that we are now con- 
tending. I insist that they said some things that were 
highly objectionable — and that they were mfs/a^en in some 
of their claims to revelation. And I contend that no amount 
of good that could be selected from their writings, should 
ever give impunity to one single error, to be lodged with 
that good, or to be recommended as truth. In proving the 
existence of errors, we must take them as they are. 



I 



CHAPTER. X. 



Having shown that the Brief Remarks, and Plea ibi 
George Fox and Early Friends, do not touch a large pro- 
portion of the documents referred, to in the Appeal; and 
that so far from proving the correctness of those vi^hich are 
particularly noticed, the w^riters of these two pamphlets 
have established the fact, that the letters are not only 
highly objectionable — but that they are to be ascribed to 
the same causes which produced the delusion of James 
Nay ler and his company — and not only so, but that the 
essential principles of Quakerism and Hicksism are iden- 
tical — I shall now present the reader with a few quota- 
tions from the printed works of Early Friends. 

George Fox. "All languages are to me no more than 
dust, who was before languages were, and am come'd before 
languages were, and am redeemed out of languages into 
the power v/here men shall agree ; but this is a whip and 
a rod to all such who have degenerated through the pride, 
and ambition from their natural tongue, and languages,, 
and all hmguages on earth is but natural, and makes none 
divine, but that which makes divine is the Word, which 
was before languages, and tongues were." Preface to 
the Battledore. 

Here G. F. asserts his own pre-existence before lan- 
guages were — in almost exactly the same terms that he 
declares the pre-existence of the Eternal Word. 

"Again, thou makest a great pudder that any one should 
witness that he is equal with GocW'' Great Mystery, p. 67. 

"He that hath the same Spirit that raised up Jesus from 
the dead is equal with God.'' SauFs Errand to Damas- 
cus, po 8. 



240 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF' 

"Pr. Thou (Alexander Ross,) sayest, It is horrid blas- 
phemy to say the Scripture is not the Word of God, and 
to say that the soul is a part of God. Answ, The Scrip- 
tures are the words of God in Exodus, and the four Books 
of the Revelations, but Christ is the Word in whom they 
end ; ajid it is not horrid Blasphemy to say that the Soule is 
part of God, for it came out of him, and that which came 
out of him, is of him, and rejoiceth in him." Great Mys- 
tery, p. 273. 

"Moreover -the Lord God let me see (when I was 
brought up into his image, in righteousness and holiness, 
and into the Paradise of God) the state, how Adam was 
made a living soul; and also the Stature of Christ, the 
Mystery, that had been hid from ages and generations: 
which things are hard to be uttered; and cannot be borne 
hy many. For of all the Sects in Christendom (so called) 
that I discoursed withal, I found none that could bear to 
be told, that any should come to Adam's Perfection, into 
that Image of God, and righteousness, and holiness, that 
Adam was in before he fell; to be so clear and pure with- 
out sin, as he was. Therefore, how should they be able 
to bear, being told, that any should grow up to the measure 
of the Stature of the fulness of Christ, when they cannot 
bear to hear, that any shall come whilst upon earth, into 
the same Power and Spirit, that the Prophets and Apos- 
tles were in? Though it be a certain truth, that none 
can understand their writings aright, without the same 
Spirit by which they were written." G. Fox's Journal, 
2d ed. part l,pp. 59,60. 

As already intimated, the ignorance of George Fox, 
must be the apology, if any apology can be offered, for 
the language used in these quotations. But what can we 
think of the claims to extraordinary revelation, set up for 
such a man, both by himself, and others down to the pre- 
sent day? And what will become of the cobweb excuses 
of G. Richardson and S. Tukc? To claim equality with 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 



241 



God — to suppose that the Soul is ^^jjcirt of God — and that 
he "should groiG up to the mcasuv'? of the fulness of the Stat- 
ure of Christ,''^ in a sense which so far exceeded coming to 
"Adam's Perfection," and being, in the same spirit and 
power which the Prophets and Apostles were in — that it 
was not to be vrondered at, that the professors of Christi- 
anity could not hear to ha told of it! Do not these tliings 
accord with his appljdng to himseh'' the title of The Son of 
God^ and receiving from his intimate friends the appella- 
tions of the Bread of Life, the Fountain of Eternal Life, 
the Father of Eternal Felicity, the Second appearance of 
him who is blessed forevfr, ^c. &c.? 

The reader will please to remember that one of the of- 
ficial charges on which I was disowned was, that I had 
made an "insidious attempt to destroy the Society, and 
George Fox's christian chara,cter and religious reputation, 
by calling in question the soundness of his religious writ- 
ings." This charge referred to the documents published 
in the Appeal. But it is not in the MS. Journal alontj 
that the sentiments contained in the old letters are found. 
They are, together with others not less revolting, in his 
printed works. And the very ex istcjice of the Society, is 
made to depend on the maintenance of them — not even 
to be called in question!! 

"The Scriptures were the prophets' words, and Christ's 
and the Apostles' words, and v/hat, as they spoke, they 
enjoyed and possessed, and had it from the Lord — Theii 
what had any to do with the Scriptures.) but as they came to 
the Spirit fhat gave them forth. You will say Christ saith 
this, and the Apostles say this: but what canst thou say?" 
M. F's Tcs. G. Fox's Journal, part 1, p. 3. 

"These things I did not see by the help of man, nor by 

the Letter, (though they are written in the Letter), but I 

saw them in the Light of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by 

his immediate Spirit and Power, as did the holy men of 

3F 



9(42 PROCEEDINGS AND rRINCirLES OF 

God, by whom the IIolj Scriptures were written/' Jour- 
nal, part l,p. 61. 

"They [the Scriptures] arc not the zcord of God as i\\6n 
(C. Wade) hasi blasphemously/ affirmed, but Christ is the 
Word of God." Great Mystery, pp. 346, 247. 

Yet G. Fox in a great number of places applies the 
terms to his own communications. 

Thus he says: ''The Word of the Lord God to all peo- 
pie that follow priest Lampitt." Journal, part 1, p. 179.. 

"And to you this is the Word of God. ib, fv 181v 

"The Word of the Lord God to thee priest Tathamv 
who art found out of the doctrine of Christ." ib. p. 182; 

"And: to thee this is the Word of the Lord." ib, p. 184. 

"So tliis is the Word of the Lord God unto all." ib, 482; 

"Thisis the Word of the Lord God to you all: go not 
^rth to the aggravating part." ib, p. 393. 

Having taken a few quotations from the published 
works of Georg£ Fox, I shall now arrange the following 
selections under the heads of subjects to v.'hi^h they re- 
late. In regard to some of the v/riters to whom I shall re- 
fer, I freely acknowledge, as I have done, again and again^ 
that they made many declarations, which, taken separat- 
ed, and purified from the errors which lie scattered among 
them, might be regarded as excelleht. But none that 
love the truth, and have a due regard for the honour of 
God, or the salvation of souls, can harbour the wish -to 
adulterate, or contradict, those valuable passages, by re- 
taining along with them, sentiments totally subversive of 
the Gospel. I am perfectly astonished at many of the 
Friends, from whom 1 had hoped better things, who are 
exerting their whole amount of influence, to prevent a 
developement of the unsound parts of the writings of 
Friends, and to suppress among the members, every doubt 
in regard to the unclouded clearness, of tlie views of our 
predecessors. The doctrines of the Gospel may be cor- 
I'uptcd — the cause of Christianity scandalized, by connect- 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 24S 

ing with it the grossest absurdities — awakened souls may 
idrink in the deadliest poison — rather than call in questiou 
the infallibility of Early Friends, and discriminate between 
their errors and what they said well! ! T^et these Friends 
remember that they that love Father or Mother more than 
Christ are not worthy of him. And if to offend one of 
his little ones, is worse than for a millstone to be hung 
about their necks, and they to be cast into the sea — how 
dreadful must it be to recommend such sentiments, as may 
occasion the eternal ruin of those who receive them! 

OF THE SCUIPTUIIES, 

"Next the literal knowledge does kill, and not make 
alive: and the Letter may also be called Dead, because 
it makes dead by Killing, as well as that in another sense 
there is no life in it: But we know that the strict sense of 
the place [2 Cor, 3. 6, 7,) to relate to the dispensation of 
the first covenant." Penn's Works, fol, vol. 2, p. 144* 

A certain J. Turner, having said that it was a princi- 
ple with the Friends — "That saints were not to do duties 
hy^ or from a command without, but from a command 
within; and that the word commanded in Scripture, wa? 
not a command to them, till they had a Word withii;i 
,them" — Edward Burroughs answers: 

"That is no command from God to me, what he com* 
man ds to another; neither did any of the saints which vre 
read of in Scripture act by the command which was to 
another, not having the command to themselves." E. B. 
Works, p. 47. 

If it be said that E. B. intended private duties — it may 
be observed that the objection, and of course the answer, 
related to duties, without any such limitation. 

"Christ left nothing in writing for the rule of faith ,and 
practice that we hear of; and it is not to be thought that 
lie was less faithful in his house, tl^an Moses; -and doubt- 



244 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

less, had he intended the rule of his followers to have been 
a written rule; he would have left it upon record with all 
punctuality; this must he believed and that done, on 
pain of eternal death." Pcnn's Select Works, vol. 1, p. 
307. 

This argument was used by Elias Hicks, borrowed, of 
course, from W. Penn. And George Jones selected this 
passage for one of his Mamchester and Stockport Tracts. 
The argument, however, is perfectly destitute of founda- 
tion. For if the Apostles and Evangelists w^ere inspired 
— if they wrote the mind of Christ — if the Holy Ghost 
spoke by them — then what they so wrote w^as of the same 
force and authority as if it had been written by Christ 
himself. Their tesiimony is clothed wdth the authority 
of God himself. The doctrines of revealed relierion are 
I'^ft upon record with all vunctuality. And they are to be 
believed and obeyed, on pain of eternal death. But let 
it be observed, that the argument of W. Penn goes to de- 
stroy the authority of the Scriptures — that they are not 
to be regarded as coming from Jesus Christ. What then? 
Is not the idea naturally suggested that the Apostles and 
Evangelists were not authorized to write them? And this 
fallacious argument against their authority as the Rule of 
Faith and Practice, lands in a virtual denial of their obli- 
gation. By a negcative mode of reasoning he gives us to 
suppose, that as Christ did not write them himself, w^c are 
not bound to believe this and do that on pain of eternal 
death. For if this obligation to believe and obey the 
Scriptures, be acknowledged to exist, then the argument 
amounts to nothing at all. But if it docs not exists then we 
are at liberty in regard both to Faith and Practice, 'to set 
the Scriptures aside with impunity. 

"Nay the Scriptures (says W. Penn) cannot be proper- 
ly styled the revelation of the Will of God, till they are 
first opened by him, v/ho w^as found worthy to unseal the 
Book, that Spirit of Truth that opens and none shute; and 
shuts and none opens." Vol. 3, p. 37, fol. 



THE SOCIETY OF rrtlENDS. 245 

It wcis the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the P».oot of David, 
the Lamb that was slain, that was spoken of in the Reve- 
lations, that was found worthy to open the Book and to 
loose the seals. But W. Fenn says it was the Spirit of 
Truth — and thus he confounds the character of Christ 
with that of the Holy Spirit. And as W. Penn declared 
the Spirit to be the Rule of Christians, he at the same 
time applies the terms to Christ, whom he makes identical 
w-ith the Spirit; and thus, "involves the danger of a very 
fatal heresy." 

In the lano;uao-e of the "Strictures on Truth Yindicat- 
ed," W. Penn, "of course cannot regard the Scriptures as 
*the written revelation of the Will of God,' " because 
their being the revelation of his Will, is made entirely to 
depend on a new revelation. And till that revelation is 
received, they cannot be properly styled a revelation of 
the Will of God! 

I have often quoted a passage from R. Barclay, declar- 
ing that "we do look upon them [the Scriptures] as the 
only fit outward judge of controversies among Christians: 
and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary to their testimo- 
ny may therefore be rejected as false. And for our parl;s, 
we are very willing that all our doctrines and practices be 
tried by them, which we never refused nor ever shaJl, in 
all controversies with our adversaries as the judge and 
test." And most earnestly did I labour to establish this 
rule among the Friends. But in practice it is daily tram- 
pled under foot. 

There is in it however, a clause, which is commonly 
used at this time, to render it a nullity. It is — "the only 
fit outward judge of controversies." This unhappily opens 
the door for individual impressions, to hold the highest 
place, as Judge of controversies. And indeed there is 
much reason to believe that this was the intention of the 
writer, who contended for the Spirit, as the Primary Rule 
of Faith and Practice. With such a modification, the 



^4{) PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OP 

practical effect of the declaration of the authority of 
Scripture, must he greatly diminished, if not totally des- 
troyed. 

But R. B. did not stop here. After having dwelt larger 
ly on an exaggerated view of the imcertainty of the text 
of Scripture, he says: "I say, all these, and much more 
which might be alleged, puts the minds even of the learn- 
ed into infinite doubts^ scruples and inexiricahle difficulties,'''' 
Bare. Works, fol. p. 353. 

This statement I venture boldly to contradicl. For it is 
a fa<:t admitted by the learned, that all the various read- 
ings of ancient copies of Holy Scripture^, which have aris- 
en from copying and re-copying, ha^e not deprived us of 
one single doctrinal sentiment, one single moral precept^ 
or one single historical fact. How much to be regretted 
is it, to see such a writer as R. Barclay, falling in with the 
current of argument which has been relied on by the ene- 
mies of revealed religion ! The reason is obvious — it was 
to destroy a dependence on the Scriptures, as the Rule of 
Faith and Practice, in order to establish the notion that 
the Spirit himself is the Rule of Christians. And in his 
zeal for this favourite opinion, he even subjects the Scrip- 
tures themselves, to the test of immediate revelation* 
*'When we doubt," says he, "of the streams of any river or 
flood, we recur to the Fountain itself, and having found it, 
there wesist; we can go no further: because there ij. 
springs out of the bowels of the earth, which are inscru^ 
table. Even so the writings and sayings of all men we 
must bring to the Word of God, I mean the Eternal Word; 
and if they agree hereunto, we stand there; for this Word 
always proceedeth, and doth eternally proceed from God, 
in and by which the unsearchable counsel and will con- 
ceived in the heart of God is revealed unto us. Works, 
fol. p. 298. 

''For I have known some of my Friends, who profess 
the same Faith with me, faithful servants of the most High 



THE SOCIETY OF FRlENlyS'. 2lT 

God, and full of ttie Divine knowledge of his Truth as it 
was immediately and inwardly revealed to them by ^he 
Spirit from a triie and living experience, who not only 
were ignorant of the Greek and Hebrew, but even some 
of them could not read their own vulgar Iciilguage; who 
being pressed by the adversaries with some citations out 
of the English Translation, and finding them to disagree 
with the manifestation of Truth in their hearts^ have bold- 
ly affirmed. The Spirit of God never said so, and that it 
ivas certainly wrong, for they did not believe, that any 
of the holy Prophets or Apostles had ever written so. — 
Which when I on this account seriously examined, I real- 
ly found to be Errors and Corruptions of the Translators; 
who (as in most translations) do not so much give us the 
genuine significations of the words, as ^^ram them to ex- 
press that, wdiich comes nearest w^ith that opinion and no- 
tion they have of truth." ib. p. 303. 

Here it may be remarked, as we go along, that R. F» 
has not given us the corrections of the Translations, which 
these illiterate men made by revelation. We have only 
^-^5 opinion that the English translation was erroneous in 
the cases alluded to. But why did he not give the cor- 
rection of the texts in question, that others might judge 
of the translation as well as himself? His object was not 
to correct particular errors in the translation, but to es- 
tablish the rule of bringing the Scriptures themselves, to 
the test of individual revelation. Nor is this all; for he 
passes a sweeping censure upon the Translators, and upon 
most translations. 

And where, I ask, is this discredit of the Scriptures, 
and this latitude of bringing them to the test of immedi- 
ate revelation to end? 

This is in the celebra,ted Apology — a Standard work, 
reprinted, and circulated in various parts of the world, 
by the Yearly Meetings themselves. 

''Shall we think that the literal text, in the very trans- 



218 miNClPLES AND TKOCEEDINGS OF 

cripts he so talks for, is any other than he calls it as to its 
most ancient translation, a corrupt stream^ a Lesbian Rule, 
pp. 15, 16, or any other than some call it, a nose of wax, no 
certain stable Rule or standard, to try all truth by, and guide 
throughout in the knowledge of the will of God?''^ 

"Shall we think, because J. O. thinks so strangely, 
that so corruptible and corrupted a stream as the meer Let- 
ter now is, since ^iY^'^'iec? and w^e?po/a^e<i, can be judged a 
fitmeasureto judge the fountain by (i.e.) the Light, Word, 
and Spirit it came from? and a fit measure to correct, and 
authoritatively to examine and determine those originals 
by?" S. Fisher's works p. 397. 

I could quote much more of the same kind from the 
writings of this author. Comment on such language is 
unnecessary. 

"x\nd here thou hast much manifested thy folly and 
weakness, who would have the Gospel contained in a book 
which all the books in the world cannot contain." (A. 
Parker, Testimony of God p. 26. 

"He [that is an apponent] said the Scripture is the 
Word. I answer [said the writer] that is another lie, 
and the Scripture is a witness against thee, it saith, God 
is the Word, and the Word became flesh," &c. (T. Law- 
son and J. Slee, Untaught Teacher, p. 11.) 

"He said the Scripture was the Word of faith. I an- 
swer that is another lie, and here thou denies Christ, who 
was before the world was, or heresy, schism, antichrist, 
or false prophet was." (z6. pp. 11, 12.) 

"He said the Scriptures did lead into the truth. I an- 
swer, that is another lie, and the Scriptures are witnesses 
against thee, which saith, the Spirit of truth leads into all 
truth; &c. {ib,) 

"He said, the Scripture led into the knowledge of God, 
and did teach man the knowledge of God. I answer, 
that is another lie, and the key of knowledge thou here 
denies, so thou art brutish in thy knowledge." ib, p. 13. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 249 

^'Matthew Caffin said, the Scripiure was llie Touch- 
stone to try spirits withaiL I a^nswer that is another lie, 
the Scripture is not the trjer of spirits, to try the living 
by the dead, that I deny;" &:c. (^■6. p. 14.) 

''Dost not thou teach m<;n to follow the Scripture that 
was never given frorti God to thee nor them; certainly 
they must neglect that portion of the spirit given to all, 
enlightening all, for no man can serve two masters. Mat. 
4^ That which kills is your Teacher, because you have 
chosen it:" {J, Humphreyes, Vision of Eternity, p. 2.) 
"For the Devil's Foundation is the I^etter; and if he 
should den) thai, it would b« enough to plenetative his 
members with a suspicious Jealousy that he were decu- 
lating that which for ma,ny years he hath taught them by 
his education to super-edificate or build up. Now to 
prove the Letter his maxim, is easier for me then for him 
in thee to prove another Temple besides the Saints' 
bodies, tliough presumption blusheth not at folly. The 
Apostles argument is not particular, as to the Letter of 
the Law; for if so, why was he so logoscvacuatc, or empty 
of expressions as not to express it particular; but seeing 
he did not well take the Devils Liberty to keep close to 
the Letter which is expressed in general terms, viz: The 
Letter kills: Now the Devils name in Hebrew signifies a 
Destroyer,- and I hope betwixt them two there's little di{^- 
(crencc^viz : killing and destroi/ing;^^ (Vision of Eterni- 
ty,p.lL) 

This is plainly asserting that there is little difference 
between the Scriptures and the Devil! ! 

This piece was published in the year 1657, and in 1708, 
was recognized by John Whiting in his Catalogue of 
Friends' Books, p. 81. 

The passage, so often used in Friends' writings — "The 
Letter killeth," has been, and still is, most grossly per- 
verted, by applying it to the Scriptures; and represent- 
ing them as producing spiritual death. The' meaning of 
2G 



250 PROCEEDINGS ANR PmNCIFLBS OF 

the zVpostle evidently was the La7v^ simply considered^ 
with reference to its iiigh obligations — and the penalty oC 
death, which it pronounces upon the trajisgrcssor^ The 
quotation last made from that preposterous piece called 
the Vision of Eternity, will serve to show the avv'ful ex- 
tent to which false principles may be carried. 

OF CHRIST: THE SEED, AKD UNIVERSAL, SAVING LIGHT.- 

"By this Seed, Ch'ace and f'Vord ofGod, m\A Light, "where- 
ivilh we say, every man is Inlightned, and hath a measure of 
ft, which strives with them in order to Save them, and 
which may by the stuhhomnec^ and ivickedjicss of man's 
Will be quenched, bruised, wounded, prcsscd-down, slain and 
crumfi'ed, we understand not the proper Essence and A^afure 
of God precisely taken; which is not Divisible into parts and 
measures, as being a must Pare, Simple Being, void of all' 
Composition or Division, and therefore can neither be re- 
sisted, hurt, wounded, .crucified or slain by all the Efferts 
and Strength of men. But we understand a Spirituaiy 
Heavenly and Invisible Principle, in which God, as Father^ 
Son and Spirit dwells: a measure of whioh Divine and 
Glorious Lifi. is in all men, as a Seed, wiiich of its own na- 
ture draws, invites and inclines to God, And this we cajl 
Vehiculum Dei, or the Spiritualbody of Christ, the Jlesh arhd 
blood of Christ, which came down- from Heaven, of. which 
all the Saints do feed, and are thereby nourished unto 
Eternal Life." Barclay ^s Worksop* 333. 

"As this Seed is received in the heart, and suifered fo 
bring, forth its natural and proper Effect, Christ comes to be 
fonned and raided; of which the Scripture makes so much 
mention, calling it the New man; Christ within, the Hope 
of Glory. This is that Christ within, which we are heard 
so much to speak and declare of: every v. here preaching 
him up, and exhorting People to believe in the Light and 
obey i/,tliat they may come to know Christ in thctn to de- 
liver them from all sin,''- ib^ p. 334.. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIE^DS. 251 

'■•I do freely Affirm, that 1 believe, Man fell, and was 
degenerated both as to Soul and Bodv: and I understand 
the first Adam, (or Earthly Man) to Comprehend both. 
Bat that there was something in Adarn^ which was no part 
•of his Soul and Body, nor jQ^- Constitutive of his being a 
Man (in my Judgment) which could not degenerate, and 
which was in Adam by the Fall Beduced to a Seed, and 
could never have been Raised in Irlm again to his Com- 
fort, but by a New Visitation of Life, which from Christ 
by the Promise wa.s Administred unto him, and is to ail 
Men in a Day.'' ib. pp. 761-2. 

That there is much confusion and contradiction in Bar* 
clay's notions of the Yehiculum Dei^ will be apparent to 
all those who have time and opportunity to trace out the 
various passages in his writings whicli relate to this sub- 
ject. In some places he makes it. the purchase of Christ's 
death, but in the last quotation it is undoubtedly repre- 
sented as something that was in iidam before he fell, and 
which, by the. Fail was reduced to the condition of a seed. 
But even in this, he falls into a palpable absurdity, in re- 
presenting it not only as -a spiritaal., lieavenlj^, invisible 
principle, but as a '^divine and glorious Life,*'* — in all meji 
as a seed, which of its own nature draws, invites, and in- 
clines to God — and yet that this seed could never have 
been raised in Adam ag:un to his comfort, but by a new 
visitatiop of Life. 

In" speaking of man iu the Fall— p. 764, he says: "In 
whom albeit there reipained a ^eed of Righteousness, 
yet no other ways, than as a JVaked Seed, in barren 
ground, in virtue ofv/hich he can do nothing, until visited 
by a New Visitation, which he receives by virtue of 
Christ as Mediator.*' 

Bo then, it is not the Seed that is purchased bat a JVezo 
Visitation to the Seed. And though the Seed is a spirit- 
ual, heavenly^ invisible principle, in which God as Father 
Son^ and Spirit dwells-— in which '^God and Christ are as 
vfrapped up" (pp. 333,384) — though it is supposed to 1?« 



252 PllOCEEDINaS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

a divine and glorious Life — and by its own nature to 
draw^ invite and incline men to God — ^yet it* is but a 
JVaked Seed in barren ground in virtue of which man can 
do nothing, until visited by a New Visitation ! 

These are some of the incongruities which arise from 
attempts to modify the doctrines of the Scriptures by a 
speculative philosophj. But the mischief docs not end 
here. For Barclay says that this Seed is the "Spiritual 
body of Christ, the flesh and blood of Christ, whirh came 
down from Heaven, of which all the Saints do iGG^J^^ 

But Jesus Christ declared, "The Bread of God, is he 
vvhich cometh down from lieaven, and giveth life to the 
world." "I am the Bread of life." "For I came down 
from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of 
him that sent me." "I am the breeid of life. This is the 
bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may- 
eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which 
came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he 
shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my 
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." "Verily, 
verily, I say unto jou, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son 
of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in yon. Who 
so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal 
life ; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my Flesh 
is meat indeed, and my blood drink indeed." &c. 

Nothing can be more clear to my mind, than that the 
Lord Jesus was here speaking of himself pcrsonallj'. His 
coming down from Heaven asserts his divine character, 
as the Son of God. The y?,^^/t which he says he would 
give for the life of the world, was literally the body that 
was wounded on the cross. For if an invisible principle, 
constituted the flesh that was given for the life of the 
world — then the actual flesh of Jesus, was not tlie ilcsh 
that was given for the life of the world. 

This is exactly the doctrine of Elias Hicks. 
But it was the actual flesh of the Lord Jesus, and not a 
mere invisible principle that was given for the life of the 



TIII5 SOCIETY OP FIIIEND3. 253 

woilJ. And as he was literally crucified — his body bro- 
ken, and his blood shed as the sacrifice for our sins — so to 
believe in him as the Saviour — to look by faith, to that 
-atoning sacrifice, is figuratively to eat his flesh, and drink 
his blood. It is an act of Faith^ — and it has direct re- 
ference to that one offering which he made to God for us, 
when he offered up himself. To change this plain and 
simple doctrine so clearly taught in the Scriptures — and 
represent the flesh and blood of Christ — whi.ch he gave 
for the life of the world, as a mere inward principle — a 
universal and saving Light— is to deny the person of the 
Lord Jesus — to set aside' his sufferings and death, as the 
alone sacrijice for sins— and thus "to involve the da.nger of 
a deadly heresy," 

It is not the question here, whether Barclay intended 
this or not— nor does the inquiry arise in this place, 
whether he declares the Orthodox faith in other parts of 
his writings. 

I am speaking i:*^ particular passages. If he was sound 
in the faith, his works should be corrected., and nothing be 
suffered to remain in them, contrary to the intention of 
the writer, or dangerous to the reader. If he was really 
unsound — his works should be rejected entire. In either 
case there can be no valid plea for arresting the inquiry; 
.and recommending the work with all its imperfections. 

^'As this Seed" says he "is received in the heart." — 
But how receu'ccf, if it be in all men, already? But waiv- 
ing this objection, we will follow R. B. a little further in 
his explanation. He says: "x\s this Seed is received in 
the heart, and suffered to bring forth its natural and pro- 
per effect, Christ comes to he formed and raised., of which 
the Scriptures make so much mention, calling it the New 
Man, Christ within, the Hope of Glory. This is that 
Christ within, which we are heard so much to speak and 
declare of: every where preaching him up, and exhorting 
the people to believe in the Lights a.nd obey it, that they 



t251 niocEEmNGs and principles of 

may come to know Ciirist in them, to deliver them from 
all sin." 

Now J would ask the reader, what relation this univer- 
sal saving 'Light — this invisihle principle, has to Jesus -of 
Nazareth? And if this is that Ch'ist within whixih ihc 
Early Friends preached up — how can it be identical witla 
the Christ that w^as crucified at Jerusalem? The more 
we examine the subject, the more we shall see its utter 
inconsistency with. the doctrine preached by the Apos- 
tles and Evangelists — "That Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God, and that beHeving we might have life through his 
Jiarae." 

1 am q-aite aware that Barclay in his Apology, written 
in 1675, says: "that we understand not this Divine Prin- 
ciple to be any part of man's nature, nor yet to be any 
Reiicks of any good whicii Adam lost by the Fall/' 
Works, fob p. 337. Yet in the Apology Vindicated, writ- 
ten in 1679, he clearly states it, as already sliown, to bo 
something that was in Adcrm^ which could not degenerate, 
but which b}^ the Fall was reduced to a seed. 

And here it may not be improper to observe,, that witli- 
in the year past, I have found a work of Samuel Fisher's, 
published in the year 1661, in the character of a Revela- 
lion. He calls it "Some Certain Hidden, or Vailed Spirit- 
ual Verities Revealed," &c. It was in answer to certain 
Queries propounded to lum, George Fox, Edward Bur- 
roughs, and John Parrot. Tiiis was before either Penn or 
Barclay had joined the Society; and stands as acknowl- 
edged authority, as to the views of Friends. W. Penn 
refers to this piece, and endeavours to explain the views 
of George Fox on the basis laid down by S. Fisher. 

The 3rd Query was: "¥/hether are the Spirit of God, 
the Spirit of Man, and the Spirit of the Devil, three dis- 
tinct Spirits?" To this question Fisher answers in^the a-f- 
firmative, that they were three distinct Spirits. 

The queries then demand among other things, whether 



THE SCKIETV OF IRIEKD^.- ^'3 

the Spirit ofMan, be distinct from the body when expired? 
Whether is there a soul iii man distinct from the afore- 
Sctid Spirit, &:c* &c, 

Fisher answers very plainly, '^That man (as God at 
first made him) was a creatii're consistent of these three ^ 
namely. Body, So ill, and Spirit," "Each of which, though 
concurrent with the rest, to the complete making up of 
that one composition or creature called man (as God at 
fxrst made him.) are yet distinct \x\ themselves, and separa- 
ble the one from the other." P. IL- 

In describing v/hat these three constituent parts of man 
are, he says of the Spirit of man, (the reader will take no- 
tice that this is distinguished from the Spirit of God>) 
"As to the Spirit of man^ which is the best, highest, and 
most noble of the three aforesaid, which concurs to the 
eonstituting of ??ia/i, in his primitive perfection, it is that 
Breath of life ^^ which God breathed into his soul, after he 
had formed hi in (a-s to his body) of the dust of the earth, 
whereby he came to be a living soul;" p. 1^: with more 
to the same effect, which for brevity sake, I omit. "This" 
says he, "is that Jiohle^ royal^ righteous^ holy^ sced^ which 
while man was at first hxjrn^ made, created, and planted a.f- 
ter the nature and image of, he was said to be planted a 
noble vine, whollj arig-^lit seed," &:c. &c. p. 14. He 
calls it "the seed of the kingdom," "the royal seed, that 
right seed, that holy seed," &:c. p. 15. lie says "it is ncit- 
ural, i. e. pertaining to the very nature of that man which 
God first created" — and "supernatural, as in reference to 
man in the fall, who is of the Devil's marring." p. 16. 

He comes at last to the winding up of this curious theo- 
ry. "At the dissolution of the composition, or whole man, 
which consists of the three aforesaid, each from the other, 



*The term applies to other creatures as well as man. "And a,ll 
flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle, and 
of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, 
and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that 
was in the dry land, died. Gen. vii. 21, 23. 



'256 FllOCEEDINGS AND nilNClPLES OF 

then the body returns to the dust from whence it came; 
and the said spirit returns up to God that gave it; and 
that soul together with it, that hath stood in the counsel of 
it: while i!^o^ 5ow/ which the body dies from, while they 
both lived together in sin, dies both from it and from God 
that gave it, forever; and is left 7iaked,Sind divested, both 
of its own 6oc/y, and its own spirit also, and lies in separa- 
tion, not only from both these, but also from God, and his 
good Spirit, tormented among all evil spirits forever." pp. 
18,19. 

As he begun with distinguishing the Spirit of God, and 
the spirit of man — -so he brings out this distinction in the 
conclusion. But mark the absurdity of the notion. He 
seems to have not the least idea of the Scripture doctrine 
of the Resurrection of the Dead. One third of each in- 
dividual he gives to the dust, and there he leaves it, witli- 
out regarding'it as a seed, sown in dishonour, to be raised 
in glory. Two-thirds of each good man, and only two- 
thirds, he sends to heaven. But of every sinner — he 
consigns one-third to the dust — one-third to God, and one- 
third to the Devil 1 Now, (passing over the monstrous 
absurdity of this division of every individual) I ask, how 
are we to suppose the spirit of man, is to be happy in heav- 
en, while its soul is tormented in hell? Or how can the 
soul be tormented in hell, while its spirit is happy in heav- 
en? Or how can the future state of the wicked be said to 
be either happy or miserable? 

Of all the extravagant visions of imagination run vvild, I 
have never met with any thing more preposterous than 
this. And yet, William Penn, in his works, refers to this 
very piece, in explanation of George Fox^s calling the soul 
apart of God, 

This, then, is the true version of Barclay's Vehiculum 
Dei — Something that was in Adam before he fell, which 
could not degenerate, and which by the fall was reduced to 
a seed — a Universal Saving Light — which being received 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 257 

and suffered to produce its natural effect — -Christ comes to 
be formed — that Christ within of which the Friends were 
heard to speak so much. But such a Christ as had no re- 
lation to Jesus of Nazareth ! 

" We can readily perceive how it should be said, that it is 
not of the proper nature and essence of God precisely ta- 
ken, being supposed to be the spirit of man. We can 
account for its being reckoned a Universal Light — that is, 
pertaining to a// men: for the same reason. But it is 
equally obvious, that if by this we are to be saved — if the 
spirit of man is a savings as well as universal light- — if by 
this, Christ comes to be formed — born, brought forth, rais- 
ed in us — if this is that Christ within, the hope of glory, 
which was the peculiar doctrine of Early Friends, it is an- 
other gospel from that which was preached by the'Apos- 
tles. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and remission of 
sins through his Name, are no necessary parts of the sys- 
tem. The doctrine of atonement is laid aside. The spi- 
rit of man becomes the Saviour — the Inward Light, ano- 
ther term for the same thing, is the Supreme Rule of be- 
lief and action — and this also is the ground oi Justification. 
For Barclay makes justification to consist in having this 
Christ, formed, born, raised, &c. in us. 

That he does acknowledge the Lord Jesus, his suffer- 
ings, death, resurrection, ascension, and mediation,! well 
know. That we could select from his writings declara- 
tions going to all the points of the Christian Faith, I am 
not disposed to deny. But my astonishment is, that such 
a mass of error should be so thoroughly incorporated with 
so much Truth. And not less do I admire that such an 
incongruous mass should pass so long as correct, among 
the Friends, many of whom are both pious and intelligent. 
I wonder that such a man as Barclay should have been so 
bewildered. I wonder that his successors should not have 
detected the error — and last, but not least, I admire that 
I myself did not sooner discover the inconsistency which 
2H 



258 PROCEEDINaS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

there is between this system, arid the simple plain ddt" 
trines preached bj the Apostles. 

I do not think that this notion originated with G. Foxr 
for in endeavouring to adopt it, he made so great a blun- 
der, according to W. P., as to take the smd for Fisher's 
spirit of man — which was one and the same with Barclay's 
Vehiculum Dei, or Universal Saving Light, And indeed 
they were both so completely identified with the mniij 
that it is not strange tha-t George Fox should mistake the 
one for the other.- But this whole theory evidently arose 
after the delusion had taken place with G. Fox, the Fell 
family, and with Nailer and his company. For Fisher's- 
Revelation was in 1661, the Fell letters in 165Q, G. F's* 
letter to O. C. in 1654yNaiIers af!air in 1656, A. Curtis's 
letter in 1660, and the Battledore the same year. Thomas 
Lower's letter, though written 14 years after Fisher's^ 
Revelation, seems to have no connection whatever with 
it. If it Wcis not a direct, unqualified,ascription of Messi- 
ahship to G. F., I can form no idea of what was intended. 

Elias Hicks, in one of his sermons, said: " 'If we walk 
in the Light as he is in the Light, we have fellowship one 
with another ;- and, as in our translation, Hhe blood of Jesus 
Christ his son cleanseth from all sin.' What kind of 
Blood? Has he any such blood as we have; any such flesh?' 
No, he has no such blood nor never. has had. The immor^ 
lal soul has not such blood. The blood is the life of the 
animal, and so it was the life of Jesus Christ the Son.. 
The light is the life which the apostle declared was in him; 
it is the light which cleanses us from all unrighteousness*^" 
Pha. Ser. p. 36(>. 

Here we have material parts of Fisher's and Barclay's 
notion of the Universal Saving Light, the Spirit of man, 
and life of the soul — the flesh and ^/ood/ of Christ. 

E. H. says: "So it is with this Christ, tlii^ light within^ 
iDecause it is a manifestation of the Spirit of God, and this 
manifestation is given to us to profit withaL And it wouUl 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 259 

be better for all professors to keep it under that name, 
because when we mention Christ, men's minds are turned 
outward, so that sometimes we are almost afraid to name 
the name of Christ, as it leads them to the contemplation 
of an outward body, a visible object." Quaker, vol. 2, p« 
267. ' 

"For the true Saviour was actually hid from their eyes, 
they could only see the gannent in vrhich he dwelt.'' Qua- 
ker, vol. 3, p. 217. 

"What is the Blood of Jesu§ Christ? Is it material? 
Certainly not, for that must perish." Quaker, vol. 3, p. 
255. • 

"Now this must be experienced; this Son of God in our 
souls must take the rule, it must be exalted above all in 
us, and every thing must be subject to it." 26.. 3, vol p. 
243. 

"But dont believe that I mean that outward Christ that 
walked about the streets of Jerusalem, but that divine 
power, that Christ that travelled v»^ith Israel in the wilder- 
ness." ib* vol. 3, p. 104. 

"We see that this Jlesh and blood never could have been 
in a strict sense, the Son of God." &c. Pha. Ser. p. 251. 

Such were the views entertained by E. Hicks, of Jesus 
Christ, hisjlesh and blood, and of the Inward Light. 

Isaac Pennington, in the extract selected by George 
Jones, and defended by George Richardson, says: "Now 
the Scriptures do expressly distinguish between Christ and 
the garment he wore; between him that came, and the body- 
in which he came, between the substance which was veiled, 
and the vail which vailed it. 'Lo ! I come ; a. body hast 
thou prepared me.' There is plainly he and the body in 
which he came. There was the outward vessel and the 
inward life. This we certainly know, and can never call 
the bodily garment Christ, but that lohich appeared and 
dioelt in the hodyJ"^ Pennington's Works, vol. 3, p. 61. 
E. Hicks evidently borrowed the ideas of I. P, for he 



230 PllOCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

uses the very term garment^ as Pennington does, to desig- 
nate iha person of Christ. But we find I. P. using various, 
forms of expression, to define what he understood to- be 
the. Christy as distinguished from the bodily garment^ the 
outward vessel^ the veil^ &c. And beyond all contradiction, 
it was tlie inward life., and this alone^ that* he regarded as 
tjie Christ, 

William Penn, agrees exactly with 1. P. in distsnguish- 
ing between Christ and the outward person. In his 
Apology, speaking of an opponent, he says: 

''First, He takes up an v/hole chapter in his endeavors 
to prove that we'dcny the I^ord that bought us, though very 
falsely and equally urjsuccessful. 

^''Because IV e deny that Person {the Son of God) that died 
at Jerusalem to he our Redeemer. 

"Which most horrid imputation has been answered more 
(I believe) than a thousand times^ hy declaring that he that 
laid down his life^ and suffered his body to be crucified by 
the Jews without the ga,tes of Jerusalem, is Christ the only 
Son of the Most High God: But that the outzoard Person 
which suffered^ was properly the Son of God, we utterly 
DENY, and it is a perfect contradiction, to their own prin- 
ciples; 'A body hast thou prepared me,' said the Son, 
then the Son was not the body, though the body was the 
Son's." Penn's Works, fol. vol. 2, p. 65. 

Here it will be seen that W. Penn is as positive" in 
denying the Lord Jesus to be the Son of God, as E. H. 
ever was, in his most objectionable declarations. I know 
of no passage in E. H's sermons, from beginning to end, 
that conveys the idea in question more distinctly, or in 
more positive terms. He makes the same distinction 
which I. Pennington made, and which was made by E. 
Hicks and his friends^ 

I knowihat it is contended by some of the advocates 
of Early Friends, that W. Penn's declaration, only goes 
to the denial that the Body, and the body alone was the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 261 

8on of God. But wby might not the same apology be 
made for E. Hicks? He said expressly "we see that this 
Jlesk and blooi never could be, in a strict sense the Son of 
God." But does not every one perceive that this denies 
the miraculous conception? But W'. P. goes still further 
than E. H. did. He does, not confine his denial to the 
merejlcsh and bloody but takes in the whole Person] in- 
cluding in it the capacity of suffei^irig. 

But it has been said,, that the word properly shelters 
W. P. Then why not allow E. H. to be sheltered under 
the terms, in a striet sense ? . The cover is quite as broad 
in the latter, as in the former case. But neither of them 
can be allowed — ^for they strike alike at a historical fact 
of Fundamental importance. . Grant this single position, 
that the outward person that suffered, was not strictly and 
properly the Son of God, and a flat and downright con- 
tradiction is given to the testimony of the Apostles and 
Evangelists^ — of the Angel from heaven, and of God the 
Father, himself. The Evangelist John said These are 
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life 
through his name. And when he had asked his disciples 
"Whom say men that I, the Son of man am?" he address- 
ed the question to them, "But whom say ye that I am." 
And Peter a,nswered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God." The Angel said to Mary — in reference to 
the miraculous conception: ''''Therefore that Holy thing 
that shall he born ofthee^ shall be called the Son of GodJ'"' 
And the voice which came from heaven declared, both 
at his Baptism, and at his Transfiguration: "This is my be- 
loved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 

It should not be overlooked that W. Penn, in the fore- 
part of the sentence, makes Christaxidi the only Sonof the 
most High God, synonimous terms. They are both used, and 
applied to the same object. And in denying the title of 
the Son, to the outward person that suffered, -he denied 



S63 PRINCIPLES A.ND PROCEEDINGS OF 

that of Christ also. For it was Christ that died — We 
were reconciled to God bj the death of his So7i, The 
prophets spoke of the Sufferings of Christ and the glory 
that should follow. Christ also hath suffered for our -sins." 
But, "Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the 
Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and 
and the Son." 

If it should be said that this was a merer)ietephysicahipec^ 
ulation in W. P. improperly end(?avouring to defend the 
Sonship — I answer, and why was it not so with Elias 
Hicks also? • It matters not h9w the error originated. It 
is contrary to the truth of the Gospel, and totally sub- 
versive of the Faith once delivered to .the Saints. Let 
no man spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, af- 
ter the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world 
and not after Christ, for in him dwelleth all the fulness 
of the God head bodily." 

The denial of the Lord Jesus, is but the counter part, 
of the mystical character of Christ, which so often accurs 
in the writing, of early Friends. 

Humphrey WoolrIch. "And this is your fallen estate, 
Eaith the Lord God, which know not Christ in you the 
hope of glory. Even the same that was before the world 
was, one with the Father, and filleth Heaven and Earth, 
and was never seen with any carnal eye, nor his voice 
beard by any carnal ear." A. Declaration &c. p. 13, 1659. 

"And therein have ye imagined a God above the clouds 
and afar off, but know not the Christ who is the express 
image of the Father's person, to reveal the Father in 
you; even he who is born of the Spirit and is Spirit, and 
the only begotten of the Spirit, the glory of him, I say, 
you are changing in your vain imaginations into the glory 
of a corruptible man." "x\nd you are speaking of a 
Christ, some of yon, of Jive foot long, and asking how he 
can dwell in a man, and calling it blasphemy to say, that 
Christ which sufifered at Jerusalem, of five foot long, can 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 



26^ 



be in a man ; thus jou are in your imaginations, and there- 
in have set up a carnal Christ in your carnal minds, but 
to this day are altogether ignorant as Philip was." ib, p, 
12. 

The same writer, published a pamphlet entitled 'This 
is written in singleness of heart,' &c. In the title page 
the author says: "Written from one who have been in the 
pit. Death, Grave and Hell ; But am come from far, and 
am sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the 
heavenly places." &c. 

In that pamphlet the writer asks this question: 

"Whether Christ were not the same before the world 
or Virgin Mary was, as he was in the days of the Jews, 
and his body the same which descended with that which 
ascended? and whether any other body did ascend into 
Heaven, but the body which is' spiritual, and the only be- 
gotten of the Spirit, and was never seen with any carnal 
eye?" p. 8. 

That Jesus was strictly, and properly the Son of God, 
and in reference to the misaculous conception, is true, if 
Christianity itself is true. And he that would deny the 
Sonship of the Lord Jesus, would make God "a liar, be- 
cause he believeth not the record that God gave of his 
So?i." It was evidently in reference to the Sonship^ that 
the Son ofman^ was said to have come down from heaven. 
Here the ascension of the Lord Jesus is virtually denied, 
on the same ground on which he was contemptuously cal- 
led "a Christ five foot long." 

John Humphreys. "WTiat saist thou to a Scripture 
weapon, Call no man master; and. Thou shall not wor- 
ship the likeness of any thing in heaven, or the earth be- 
neath: hut man is a likeness: ergo, he that worship man 
breaks God's command. By the way; the likeness of any 
thing in Heaven neither; but one question. How do you 
escape the violating ofthis mom/ (as you call it) command 
when you pretend to worship Christy and say he is m 



264 PRINCIPLES AND PliOCEEDlNGS OF 

Heaven with a humane body? Certainly a humane body 
is a likeness: certainly you are worse then the Papal 
Church, who allow the Picture of Christ, and maintain a 
company of poor men to make them; for a poor trade is 
held up by them." Vision of Eternity, p. 8. 

"Now concerning thy human bodied Christy did not God 
make all things by Christ, and was not he a perfect Christ 
from the beginning, or before (as to particulars) and was 
a perfect Christ, and Lamb slain from the beginning of 
world? then surely that humane body was not him." ib^ 
p. 17. 

"Thou in answer to my 6 query saist, that Christ is an- 
other gess spirit then the saints, or not tke same; but 
whether thou meanest not so in quality or quantity'^ or 
neither I know not; but this I know, They are kings and 
priests on earth, and Christ is no more» 2. I say, That 
there is no diiference in, or of him that sanctifieth or he 
that is sanctified; read Heb. 2, 11, 12. For they are all 
one saith the text, which comprehends both quality and 
quantity,'''' ib, pp. 17, 18. 

"Christ shall direct the way of the perfect; or God in 
Flesh shall direct the way to the perfect, as in Heb. for 
he directs all to perfection thats past the Creator." z6. 

It will be seen that the radical error exhibited in the 
foregoing extracts, (of which a much larger collection 
might be made) relates not only to the character of CArz'^^ 
but to that of the Holy Spirit also. And the poisonous 
quality of this error extends throughout the whole body 
of Joctrine. I shall give el few examples, and on du few 
other points of doctrines. 

ATONEMENT, SANCTIFICATION, JUSTIFICATION. 

In quoting from R. Barclay and W. Penn, I give them 
full credit for saying many things on the subjects before 
us, which had there been nothing of a contrary nature, 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS.- 265 

might have ranked them high among christian writers. 
But as they committed errors of a most dangerous charac- 
ter, we ought not to forbear to put their readers on their 
guard, lest they receive deadly poison^ while they suppose 
they are only taking wholesome food, from tlie hands of 
their "dear fore-fathers." 

Robert Barclay. This so highly esteemed writer, 
places the proposition on Justification^ immediately after 
that on the Universal and Saving Light. It begins in 
these words: "As many as resist not this Light, but receive 
the same, it becomes in them a holy, pure, and spiritual 
birth, bringing forth holiness, righteousness, purity, and 
all those blessed fruits, which are acceptable to God; by 
which holy birth, to wit: Jesus Christ, formed within us^ 
and working his works in us, as we are sanctified, so are 
we Justified in the sight of God, according to the Apos- 
tle's words; But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but 
ye are Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by 
the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6. IL Therefore it is not 
by our works WTOught in our will, nor yet by good works, 
considered as of themselves; hut hj Christ, who is both 
the Gift and the Giver, and the Caw^e producing the effects 
in us: who, as he hath reconciled us, while we were ene- 
mies', doth also in his wisdom sare us a.nd justifi/ us after 
this manner, as saith the same Apostle elsewhere: Accord- 
ing to his Mercy he hath saved us, by the washing of re- 
generation and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. Tit. 3. 
5." Apology, Prop. vii. 

And here it may be observed, that his notion of the 
Vehiculum Dei, lies at the foundation of his doctrine of 
Justification. It is this Universal Saving Light — this 
Spiritual Invisible Principle, this something that was in 
Adam— not of the proper nature and essence of God, pre- 
cisely taken — which being received, becomes a Holy, Pure, 
and Spiritual Birth, which birth, we are told, is Jesus Christ 
formed within us. So then, it is this Invisible Principle, 
21 



266 TROCEEmNGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

that becomes Jesus 'Christ within tjs! He does not mak^ 
the knowledge of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity 
necessary to this result. This Christ within, the hope of 
glory, is not that same Jesus Christ whom the Jews cruci- 
fied- — who bore our sins in his own- body on the tree — 
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through 
Faith in his blood — to whom all the Prophets gave witness^ 
that through his Name, whosoever believeth rn him shalJ 
receive remission of sins. No; it is a Christ formed- of an- 
Invisible Principle — and this^ as it would seem, without 
ever hearing of the name of Christ, or having any refer* 
cnce to him who died for us. Thiisit is evident, that by 
following a speculative philosophy, instead of the testimo-^ 
ny of Evangelists and Apostles, he stumbled at the very 
threshhold of his subject, and merged the character of our 
Holy Redeemer, into a mere Invisible Principle!! 

And then,, in&tead of se,tting out, as the Apostles did^ 
with Repentance towards God, and Faith towards our 
Lord Jesus Christ, he goes to works, not indeed in our owi* 
wills, as he says — nor considered in themselves — biri 
wrought by "tins Christ within." By these works we are 
said to be Sanctified — and "as we are Sanctified so we arer 
Justified in the sight of God." 

As this exposition is wrong in the ground work— in- 
taking the strange theory of the Vehiculum Dei, or Uni- 
versal Saving Light, instead of the simple and plain doc- 
trine o^ Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, who died upon the 
Cross, a Sacrifice for our Sins, and ever lives to make ixi- 
tercession for us — which Faith is the work of the Spirit, 
in the use of the Word — So the structure which he raises 
on that false foundation cannot stand* 

I wish the reader distinctly to understand, that I believe 
it is the Spirit that reproves the world— It is the Spirit 
that quickens. The Spirit ^6'5/i^'c5 of Christ, and glorifies 
him, in pointing the awakened sinner to him, and inspir- 
ing a living Faith in him. We are strengthened by the 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 267 

JSpirit, in our Christian course. He helps our infirmities, 
and when the adoption is obtained, bears witness with 
pur spirits, that we are the children of God — and. power- 
fully sheds the Jove of God abroad in our hearts: the ear^ 
nest of the promised inheritance, the foretaste of thejojs 
of heaven. 

But the Lord Jesus, is ernphalicallj our Redeemer. As 
we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, 
we are under the curse of the broken Law, and thereby 
are obnoxious to the wrath of God, and vengeance of eter- 
nal fire. Nor is this all: there is attached to us, as the 
consequence of sin, a pollution^ totally incompatible with 
the purity and holiness of God. And besides this, we are 
under the dominion^ and in the servitude of the devil. We 
nmy consider the condition of the sinner, in a three fold 
point of view. L Guilty and condemned. 2. In pollu- 
tion and corruption; and thus totally unfit for heaven. 3. 
An alien from God and servant of the Devil. This whole 
character must be changed, in order to experience Re^ 
(Jemption, In that Redemption which comes by Jesus 
Christ, Jw5i(^ca^zon stands opposed tothe^?-5/ part of our 
rqin: Sanctification^ to the second: and Adoption to the 
thirds 

I dq not mean to say, that these three parts of our rcn 
demption, are carried on to completion, in the order in 
which I have mentioned them. Nor would I be under- 
stoqd, that sanctification^ has respect only to the pollution 
oVpast sins: for it embraces the present temper and disr 
position of the mind. 

The Love of God, is the source from which the whole 
means of our redemption proceeded. God so loved the 
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
feelieveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting 
life. The Spirit is the Powerful Agent, by whom those 
means are effectually applied to us. And it is by his pre- 
sent help and energy, immediately operating upon the 



268 rROCEEDINGS AND PRINCfPLES OF 

heart, that the temper and inchnation to sin are subdued, 
and the' defihng habits and love of sin destroyed. 

When, therefore, the deep sense of the sinfulness of sin 
is produced, and Repentance experienced — it is the office 
of the Spirit, by whom the woric was begun, to fix the 
Faith on Jesus Christ, as the sacrifice for our sins, and the 
Advocate with the Father for us: as said the Apostle: "In 
whom we have redemption through his blood, even the 
forgiveness of sins." And this remission and Justification, 
we receive through Faith, ^'Therefore, being justified 
by Faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Je- 
sus Christ; by whom we have access, by Faith, into this 
grace (or favour) wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of 
the glory of God," Without shedding of blood there is 
no remission — and the remission of our sins, is not by the 
shedding of the blood of bulls and goats, but of the Lamb 
of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. And its efficacy is ap- 
plied by Faith in his Name. "Believe in the Lord Jesus 
and thou shalt be saved." 

And as the awful demerit of sin, and the riches of the 
X-ove of God, are both set forth in the amazing price that 
was paid for our redemption — that the justice of God 
might be maintained, and mercy extended to the trans- 
gressor — that God might- be declared to be Jvist, and the 
Justifier of him that believes in jesus — so the obligations 
of gratitude and love, as well as the assurance of redeem- 
ing mercy, are set forth in the strongest point of view, in 
the plan of redemption. We are not redeemed with cor- 
ruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious 
blood of Christ. We are bound not to live unto ourselves, 
but unto him that died for us, and ever liveth to make in- 
tercession for us. 

Thus the remission of our sins, is the direct effisct of the 
death and intercession of Jesus Christ for us — we coming 
on the ground of Faith and Repentance. 

lih^ pollution oi %m^ is washed away, by the Blood of 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 269 

Chri>3t. Tims the Saints in heaven, are said to have wash- 
ed their robes, and made thei» white in the blood of the 
Lamb. Almost all things, said the Apostle, are bj the 
Law purged with Blood — And if the blood of bulls and of 
goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, 
sanctifieth to the purifying of the ftesh — how much more 
shall the blood of Christy who through the Eternal Spirit, 
offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience 
from dead works to serve the living God? 

At the same time, as the Spirit is the immediate agent, 
in applying the testimony of the Word — and the efficacy 
^f the blood of Christ, (by Faith on our part), both in our 
Justification and Sanctifieation, so likewise He changes 
the sinful temper of our minds, and produces the fruits of 
obedience, and sheds abroad in the heart the Love of God. 

Here is an important change of condition and charac- 
ter, and along with it is the Adoption, And because we 
are sons, God sends forth the Spirit of his Son into our 
hearts, crying Abba, Father, the Spirit itself bearing wit- 
ness with our spirits, that we are the children of God. 
And if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs 
with Jesus Christ. 

"Thus being made free from sin, and become servants 
to God, we have our fruit unto holiness, and the end ever- 
lasting Life." 

Here I might say something of the formal Profession of 
allegience to our rightful Sovereign, in passing from un- 
der the Powers of Darkness, into the kingdom of the dear 
Son of God. But this would lead to other points of doc- 
trine, which for the present I shall pass over. 

But I do enter my solemn protest, against Barclay's 
doctrine of the Vehiculum Dei, both as it respects the 
<:haracter of Christ, and the doctrine of Justification. It 
is totally at variance with the facts of Gospel History, 
and the plan of Redemption, as laid down in the Holy 
Scriptures. To consider an Invisible Principle, as the bodi/, 



270 PRINCIPLES AND PROCEEDINQS OP 

Jlesh^ and blood of Christ, is virtually to deny that body 
that was broken, and that blood that was shed upon the 
cross, as ^Ae Sacrifice for our Sins: and to regard that Invisi- 
ble Principle, as forming Christ in us — is virtually to de- 
ny the Lord Jesus, our Crucified, Risen, and Ever Living 
and Glorified Redeemer — who dwells in the hearts of be- 
lievers— c>?/ Faith, And to suppose that by the effect of 
that inward principle, working works of holiness in us, 
and forming 'Hhis Christ within," we are Sanctified, and 
so Justified, is to dispense, at once, with the whole doctrine 
of atonement, which formed so striking a feature of the 
previous figurative dispensation, and which stands out so 
prominently in the death of the Lord Jesus for us — ^^who 
bore our sins in his own body on the tree — and died for 
our sins, the Just for the unjust, to bring us to God. It 
entirely subvertsthe doctrine of Justification by Faith, 
and substitutes that of Works, though the Apostle declares 
that by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified — 
and if righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead 
in vain. 

It is to no purpose that other parts of Barclay's works, 
may recognize the doctrine of Faith in Christ. If he has 
expressed clear and Scriptural views — retain them — but 
free them from every mixture of error. Reject every 
sentence, every line, and every word, that is not conform- 
able to the Truth, as it is in Jesus, 

But so long as this Vehicuhim Dei^ this Universal, Sav- 
ing Light — tliisseed in Barren ground — this Glorious liife, 
though not of the proper nature and essence of God pre- 
cisely taken, is retained as the Foundation of the System, 
so long as it is convertible into the character of Jesus 
Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and made the Primary Rule 
of Faith and Practice: error — incurable and deadly er- 
ror, may be expected to prevail in the Society holding 
such a system. 

William Penn. Few men have ever written with more 



tllE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. STTl 

incongruity than W, Penn. Some of his sentiments are 
so excellent, that we are carried into admiration of the 
powers of his mind, and the heauty of his illustrations* 
While others are so excessively erroneous, as not only 
to call in question the soundness of his principles, but to 
give rise to astonishment, that things so contradictory, 
and irreConcileable to each other, should have emanated 
from the same mind, without any evidence of recantation j 
Or change of opinion, 

I believe the Friends, both collectively, and as individual 
Writers, have acted on the principle, never to retract any 
doctrinal sentiment once published. Thefe may be ex- 
ceptions, but I do not recollect any. The cause is easily 
explained. With their peculiar views of Revelation, it 
would be mortifying to themselves to acknowledge error, 
for thia would, at once, confess delusion. In addition to 
this, opponents would not fail to use it as an argument, 
if not against the doctrine, at least against the claims to 
revelation. But by the course pursued, consequences in- 
calculably more dangerous and more disgraceful have 
followed. The principles of the Society have become 
confused, beyond any example whatever. The most 
deadly heresies are mixed up with undeniable truths. 
And the grossest absurdities, and even blasphemies, are 
retained and defended, as having been dictated by In- 
spiration. Treatise has been added to Treatise, and of- 
ficial declaration to official declaration, without being un- 
derstood to repeal, or extinguish any .thing that had gone 
before. From Whiting's Catalogue, and the knowledge 
we have of works published since that Catalogue was 
made out, the writings of Friends, were they all collected, 
would amount to some hundreds of Volumes. By these 
writings you may attack or defend almost every doctrine 
of Christianity — or every heresy that has ever disturbed 
the peace of the Church. I have said almost every doc- 
trine — for I believe we could not defend the Ordinances, 



273 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

and perhaps a few other Christian doctrines, by the wri- 
tings of Friends. But I beUeve all heresies might be 
both resisted and defended by them. 

It has often been said that W. Penn, in his Sandy Foun- 
dation Shaken, was exposing the errors of his opponents, 
in the objectionable terms which they used. But if so, 
he should have shown the error of the terms^ in contrast 
with the doctrine to which they were applied* But in- 
stead of this^ he denies the doctrine of satisfaction,* or 
as he represents it, the payment of the debt by another, 
and places- our acceptance as the mere forgiveness of our 
sins. This notion sets the doctrine of a Sacrifice entirely 
aside. For the atoning Sacrifices under the Law, and 
even from Abel, all pointed to the one great offering, 
which was made by the Lord Jesus, when he offered up 
himself. In all those atoning sacrifices, the life of the 
victim, was taken, instead of that of the transgressor, who 
stood exposed to the penalties of the violated Law. This 
is the simple, obvious nature of a sacrifice. It is the suf- 
fering of the innocent victim, for the exemption of the 
transgressor. But the whole range of W. P's. arguments 
is directed against this doctrine. In opposition to it, he 
insists upon mere mercy, pardon, and forgiveness. 

He calls it the ^'Vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction ;" by 
which I presume he means the common doctrine. 

After quoting Neh. 9, 16, 17, he says: "Can the hon- 
est hearted reader conceive that God should thus be mer- 
cifully qualified whilst executing the rigor of the Law 
transgressed, or not acquitting without the debt be paid 
him by another? I suppose not." Penn's Works, fol. vol. 
1, p. 255. 

After quoting Isa. 55, 7; he says: "Come, let the un- 
prejudiced judge, if this Scripture doctrine, is not very 



*Other doctrines of Fundamental importance might be mentioned; 
but they are omitted for the present, for the sake of brevity. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIET'.'BS. 



273^ 



remote from saying his Nature cannot forgive sin, tlicre- 
fore let Christ paj him; full satisfaction, or he will certain 
Ij be avenged; which is the substance of that stra.nge 
opinion." ib. 

Again, in the same page, after quoting Jer. 31, 31. 33, 
31, he says: "Here is God's mere Grace asserted against 
the pretended Kecessity of a Satisfaction, to procure his Re- 
mission ; And this Paul ackiiowledgeth to be the dispen- 
sation of the Gospel in his 8th chap, to the Hebrews: So 
that this New Doctrine, doth not only contradict the na- 
ture and design of the second covenant, but seems, in short, 
to discharge God both of his Mercy and Omnipotence." ib. 
And again, after quoting Mic. 7. 18, and making some 
comments upon it, he says: "So that if the Satisfactionists 
should ask the question, w^ho is a, God like unto ours that 
cannot pardon iniquity nor pass by transgression, but re- 
taineth his anger until somebody make him satisfa^ction? 
I answer, Many amongst the harsh and severe rulers of 
the nations." ib, p. 256* 

I have often been astonished at the arguments of W. 
P., on account of the sophistry of his reasoning, and the 
little regard which he frequently paid to the m.ost obvious 
fads. The 8th chapter of Hcb. to which he refers, be- 
gins with a direct reference to the Priesthood of the Lord 
Jesus, And in the last verse but one of the previous chap- 
ter, in speaking of his priestly office, he says: "For this he 
did once, when he offered tip himself'' Here is the ground 
of the remission of which the Apostle speaks. And in the 
next chapter, he returns to the same subject again; and 
carries it through the remainder of that, and a great part 
of the tenth chapter. He shows that the sacrifices of the 
legal dispensation pointed to the death of Jesus Christ, 
as a Sacrifice for sin — that by his own blood he entered 
into the Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption 
for us — that it is this that purges our conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God — that the.foree of the 
2K 



T14 PROCEEDINGiS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

Testament depended on the death of the Testator— tha^ 
ahnost all things are by the Law purged with blood, ancl 
without shedding of blood there is no remission^ And as if 
to guard against a mystical construction of this great doc- 
trine, he clearly shows that this shedding of blood was not 
to take place often — but ONCE. "So Christ was once of- 
fered to bear the sins of many." — "For by one offering he 
hath forever perfected them that are sanctified." 

Here is the ground, and only ground of the free mercy 
of God to sinful man. It is really astonishing that W. P.^ 
with these clear testimonies before his eyes, should argue 
as he did in his Sandy Foundation Shaken. 

The arguments drawn from the passages quoted from the 
Prophets, are equally fallacious. For the doctrine of Sa- 
crifice was one of the most prominent features of the Dis- 
pensation under which the Prophets wrote. And all the 
Promises of God, under that Dispensation, had an undeni- 
able reference to the principles embodied in the Lawy 
and the proYision which God had m.ade for the remission 
©f sin. Does any one suppose that the promises which 
were held out to penitent sinners, were to be enjoyed on 
any other condition than those which God himself had 
laid down in his Word? Did he intend to lay the Law 
aside, and aboK&h sacrifices before the coming of Christ f 
Certainly not. The Law was in full force. The sacrifi- 
ces were to be duly observed. And those sacrifices point- 
ed to the sufferings of Christ. 

Thus all the promises of God, centre in Him, of whon¥ 
Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write. 

Had W. P. been willing tosee,'he might have seen in the 
53d chapter of Isaiah, (the next but one to that to which; 
he referred), the Christian doctrine of Stitisfaction most 
distinctly stated. "But he was wounded for our trans- 
gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastise- 
ment of our p eace was upon him; and with his stripes we 
are healed. All wc hke sheep have go ne astray; we have 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. SiTS 

turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid 
<tn him the iniquity of us all." Read the wh©le chapter: 
as strikingly setting forth the vicarious and satisfactory 
nature of the sufferings of the Son of God. 

Tlie whole Treatise is one consolidated mass of error. 
But I will quote a few more passages, as illustrative of the 
manner in which this most important subject is treated. 
Under the head of "The Absurdities that unavoidably 
follow the comparison of this doctrine [of Satisfaction] 
with the sense of Scripture," he says: 

*'l. That God is gracious to forgive, and yet tis impos- 
sible for him, unless the debt be fully satisfied. 2. That 
the finite and impotent creature [by which Jesus Christ is 
plainly intended] is more capable of extending mercy and 
forgiveness than the Infinite and Omnipotent Creator. 3, 
That God so loved the world he gave his only son to save 
it; and yet that God stood off in high displeasure, and 
Christ gave himself to God as a complete satisfaction to 
his offended Justice; with many more such like gross con< 
sequences that might be drawn." Vol. 1, p. 257. 

Whatever may be said of the term impossibility in re^ 
spect to God's pardoning sinners in any other way: and 
while the perfect freedom of Deity, to do any thing not 
inconsistent wdth his nature, must be maintained: the ne- 
cessity for the plan of salvation may be fairly drawn from 
the fact of its adoption* There is a perfect fitness in the 
Will of God; as there is a perfect harmony in all his Attri- 
butes. But it is clear that the arguments of W. P. were 
not directed to the question of the abstract possibility or 
impossibility of the thing — but to the doctrine itself. 

If it be said that he was writing against a rigid satisfac- 
tion^ I would ask: If the doctrine of Satisfaction be admit- 
ted at all, what can it be short of a rigid or complete Sat- 
isfaction? A satisfaction not complete, is a contradiction 
in terms. But it was the doctrine on the broa,d ground 
against which he was contending. 



976 mOCEEDINOS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

Among the "Consequences, Irreligious and Irrational,'" 
as he calls them, he sajs: "That it was unworthy of God 
to Pardon^ but not to inflict punishment on the innocent, 
or require satisfaction where there was nothing due." * * * 
'^It no way renders man beholding, or in the least oblig- 
ed to God, since by their doctrine, he would not have 
abated us, Ror did he Christ the last farthing, so that the 
acknowledgments are peculiarly the Son's, which destroys 
the whole current of >Scripture Testimony, for his good 
will towards men. — O the infamous portraiture this doc- 
trine drav/s of Infinite Goodness: Is this your Retribution, 
O injurious Satisfactionists?" 2*6.* p. 258. And in conclu- 
sion he says: ^^But many more are the gross absurdities 
and Blasphemies, that are the genuine fruits of this so 
confidently believed doctrine o^ Satisfaction." 

How shockingly irreverent is this strain of argument, 
as well as subversive of the whole scope of Scripture tes- 
timony \ 

The Plan of Redemption originated in the Perfect 
Wisdom, the Abounding Love, and Amazing Goodness of 
God. "God so loved the world that he gave his only be- 
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life." "He was made a little 
lower than the angels for the suffering of death, that he 
by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." 
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through 
Faith in his Blood — To declare his righteousness for the 
remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of 
God; to declare I say as this time his righteousness, that 
he might be Just, and the Justifier of him that believeth in 
Jesus." 

The Sandy Foundation Shaken, so far as my informa- 
tion extends, is universally admired by Deists and Unita- 
rians. It was printed by the latter class of persons in 
England, and circulated, as the best Tract in their collec- 
tion. 



1 



THE SOCIETY OV FRIENDS. 277 

The autlior of that piece, on another occasion express- 
ed himself in a manner as different from the foregoing 
passages, as language could well be. But in the passage to 
which I allude^ lie discovers a remarkable misa,pprehen- 
sion of terms. He introduces it bj saying: "In short, Jus- 
tification consists of two parts, or hath n. two fold conside- 
ration, viz. Justiji cation from the guilt of sin, and Justijica- 
tion from \hQ. power ^nd. pollution of sin." Works, fol. vol. 
2, page &68. Now I would ask what ideas a man 
:COuld have oi Justification^ to apply that term to the^ozi*- 
er OV pollution of sin? If Justification could, by any j9055/- 
bility^ be applied in the case of the power of sin, it would 
amount toAntinomia^nism: or Justifica,tion in the practice^ 
and under the power of sin. I do not suppose the writer 
intended this; but used the term for Sanctification and 
Obedience* With this correction, I will give the passage 
to which I have alluded : 

"The first part of Justification," says he, "we do reve- 
rently and humbly acknowledge, is only for the sake of 
the Death and Sufiferings of Christ. Nothing we can do, 
though by the operation of the Holy Spirit, being able to 
^cancel old debts, and wipe out old. scores. It is the pow- 
er and efiicacy of that propitiatory offering, upon Faith 
and Repentance, that Justifies us from the sins that are 
past: and it is the Power of Christ's Spirit in our hearts, 
that purifies, and makes us acceptable to God." ib. Here 
we have the doctrine concisely stated. And I give it as 
a total refutation of the deistical arguments "of the Sandy 
Foundation Shaken. 

But I ask if it is not passing strange, that both doctrines 
should come from the same man, and without any ac- 
knowledged recantation? And is it not a continuation 
-of the paradox, that his friends, after his deach, should pre- 
serve the Sandy Foundation Shaken, as well as the other? 
And it is more surprising still, that the Society, after wit- 
nessing the use which has been made of that work, to 



278 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

serve the cause of Unitarianism, and even of open Deism, 
should insist on recognizing it, as in strict accordance with 
Holy Scripture — and affectionately recommend it, along 
with the rest of the writings of early Friends, to the fre- 
quent and serious perusal of Friends generally, and espe- 
cially to the youth. 

Another passage from W. Penn, and I have done. In 
his Christian Quaker, he says: "And as at any time diso- 
bedient men have hearkened to the still voice of the 
■ Word, that messenger of God in the heart, to he affected 
and convinced by it, as it brings reproof for sin, ^which is 
but a Fatherly chastisement; so upon true brokenness of 
soul, and contrition of Spirit, the very same principle and 
Word of Life in man, has Mediqted and Atoned^ and God 
has been Propitious^ lifting up the light of his countenance, 
and replenishing such humble penitents with divine con- 
solations. So that still the same Christ, Word-God^ who 
has lighted all men, is by sin grieved and burdened, and 
bears the iniquities of such as sin, and reject his benefits. 
But as any hear his knocks and let him into their hearts, 
he first wounds, and then heals; afterwards he Atones^ Me- 
diates^ and Re-instates man in the holy image he is fallen 
from by sin. Behold this is the state of restitution!" 
Works, fol. vol. 1, p. 574. 

Here we have the character of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
reduced to a mere Principle in Man. And then this Prin- 
ciple is said to Atone^ Mediate^ and Re-instate man, &c. A 
greater perversion of the doctrine of Atonement could 
scarcely be conceived. But it should not be overlooked, 
that he takes the sinner here, from his first convictions, 
through the several stages of his change, to the state of 
restitution. Yet Faith in the I^ord Jesus Christ, with 
reference to his Incarnation, Sufferings and Death, as a 
real sacrifice for our sins, is entirely left out. And the 
only atonement here mentioned, is that of a Principle in 
man ! 



Tim SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. "^79 

If we take the Scripture doctrine of tlie death of Christ 
tipon the Cross — we know that this occurred but once- — 
death hath no more dominion over him. It is one offerings 
and that offered but once. For by one offering he hath per- 
fected forever them that are sanctified. And- again: 
"Now, once, in the end of the world hath he appeared to 
put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself." "He was once 
oifered to bear the sins of many." Then there is no room 
left for the sacrifice of a Principle. 

But this supposed slaying of an inward Principle, on 
this hypothesis, must have taken place often, even innume- 
cable times since the foundation of the world. But the 
true sacrifice was offered but once. 

But, no man was ever yet justified in the sight of God* 
hy the sacrifice of a goodprinciple in himself. 

But on the other hand, if this doctrine of mysticism be- 
takenj and the efficacy of an inward sacrifice, and an in- 
ward atonement be acknowledged, then there is no place 
left for the actual death of the Lord Jesus^ — except, (a& 
William Penn elsewhere places it), in the character of a 
martyrdom. But a mere martyrdom can have no neces- 
sary connection with our salvation. 

OF GOD. 

We have already seen that George Fox contended for 
equality with God, W. Penn in his apology for him, vol. 
2, p. 433, says: "he [G. F.] understood no more by Equal- 
ity, than unity." And that "he observes no niceties of 
expression." If this be true, 'G. F. could not have used^ 
either the words which man^s wisdom teaches, or which 
the Holy Ghost teaches. For neither the one nor the 
other, ever dictated such an application of terms. That 
G. F. was extremely ignorant of language, is no doubt 
true, yet this fact cannot satisfactorily explain his using 
such language again and again: and this at intervals of 
several years. 



280 PROCEEDINGS AND rmNClPLES OF 

But he was not the only Friend that advocated the' 
same opinion. 

Francis IIowgill, was a prominent minister, and not 
particularly chargeable with lack of education. In a 
piece entitled Darkness and Ignorance Expelled, p. 21, he 
says: 

*'And the first thing that thy dark mind stumbles at 
is^ that some have said That they that have the Spirit of 
God, are Equal with Godi 

"He that hath the Spirit of God, is in that which is 
equal, as God is equal : and his ways equal. And he that 
is joined to the Lord is one Spirit, there is unity, and the 
unity stands in Equality itself. 

"He that is born from above, is The Son of God, and he 
said I a,nd my Father arc one." Here F. H. puts every 
regenerate man, into the same character as Jesus Christ, 
The Son of God, But to proceed — "And when the Son 
is revealed and speaks, the Father speaks in him, and 
dwells in him, and he in the Father. In that which is 
equal, in Equality itself', there is equality in nature, 
though not in stature. Go learn what these things mean, 
the understanding and learned will know what I say; and 
this is neither damnable nor blasphemous; but on the con- 
trary it is saving and precious to them that believe. 

"And thou concludes, Though they be glorified in hea- 
ven, yet are they not equal with God. 

"Here thou blasphemes; The Son is glorified with the 
Father in the same glory he had with him before the 
world began; the glory is in purity, equality, immortality 
and eternity." 

Such language as this is perfectly horrible. The char- 
acter of The Son is claimed and repeated, and the mons- 
trous notion of Equality with God defended by arguments. 
Here it is clear that unity, in any sort of allowable sense, 
was not intended, for he says the unity stands in Equality 
itself And as for the equality in nature but not in stat- 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 281 

urc — it makes the matter no better — for the nature of 
God is Infinite — all his attributes are infinite. Omnipo- 
tence, Omniscience, Self-Existence, are among the Attri- 
butes which are inseparable from his nature. And how 
are there to be different statures in these? How is one 
infinity to be less than another? 

Whatever might be intended^ it is with the language 
that we are particularly concerned. And there can be no 
danger in saying that the terms are blasphemous^ and the 
arguments perfectly absurd. 

John Humphryes. '''For all things visible and invisible 
are God in a Lump, but otherwise properly called his sons 
oridems." "Nature orders its motions so, as to previate 
itself into its former Egrediention, or going forth in the 
visible, its incipation and original being itself. God could 
not come forth in any thing but himself, seeing himself 
was all things." Vision of Eternity, p. 19. 

This is plainly the ancient Heathen Pantheism, which 
is the root and ground of modern Atheism. 



In my Vindication, Repository, Vol. 5, No. 19, after 
speaking on the obligation of coming directly to the 
Scriptures as the Rule of Faith and Practice,! said: "In 
regard to the writings of our own members. I believe 
they contain many excellent sentiments, examples, and 
testimonies, in accordance with the Scriptures. But I 
also believe they have some imperfections, which ought to 
be distinguished from what they said well. And this dis- 
crimination would be made, if with minds enlightened bj 
the Holy Spirit, we brought them to the test of Holy 
Scripture." 

And after making a large allowance for the circum- 
2L 



2S2 PRocEfiims'G^ AAD rm^ciPLEB 61^ 

stances in which the Earlj Friends wrote^ I added": "^An^ 
when the weakness or mistakes of eminent mes, are at- 
tempted to be included along mith truth, or to be set up as 
fundamental principles, the necessity for such a discrimin^ 
ation becomes a subject of yery serious consideration.'^ 

This gave great offence to the leading Conservatiyes* 
Much censure was cast upon me in conversation. In the 
mean time, an xirticle appeared in the Friend, VoL 9, No« 
22, under the head of Standards of Doctrine. The ob- 
ject of the writer was to prove, that from the diiferent 
constructions given to the Scriptures, the writings of 
the EarJj Friends, and not the Scriptures, were to be the 
Standard of doctrine for us. This article in the Friend^ 
I briefly Reviewed in the Repository, VoL 5, No» 25* But 
to meet the objections which had been made to the sen- 
timents contained in my Vindication^ published in tlie- 
19th and 20th numbers of the Repository, I published, in 
the 23rd number, an Article under the head of E. Bates's 
Vindication Reviewed. In that piece I said; 

"In reference to the writings of our Early Friends^ 
it ought to be remembered, that the general recommen-^ 
datians o-f those writings,^ necessarily include the whole of 
them*" * * * The "sincerity [of our fore-fathers] is prov- 
ed by their many and deep sufferings* But these suffer- 
ings do not prove their infallibility, or the correctness of 
all their writings* Their piety and acceptance with Go d 
are not questions at all to be agitated by me, and it is 
equally far from me topass a censure upon their writings, 
in a genera] and summary way. But I am bound for 
truth's sake, to say, that some joarts of their writings, can- 
not bear the test of Holy Scripture." 

In the same article I had noticed the Address to the 
Members of Ohio and Indiana Y. M. which I had writ- 
ten ; and in which Ihad stated the Doctrine of the Resur- 
rection, in the language of Scripture. And I mentioned 
that when I presented this Address to the Meeting for 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 283 

Sufferings for its approval, it was decidedly opposed — a 
committee was appointed to endeavour to modify it — and 
the modification proposed was, to take out the pass.ages 
of Scripture on this subject, and supply their places with 
quotations from the writings of Friends — all which state-* 
ments, I have fully proved to be true: and for the proof 1 
refer the reader to my Refutation of the Document of the 
Meeting for Sufferings. 

That Meeting, as already noticed, issued a document 
against me, without previous notice, and when I was ab' 
sent in England, and without ever to this day furnishing 
me with a copy of it. It was read^and approved in th^ 
Yearly Meeting — directed to be forwarded to all the 
Meetings for Sufferings in the world — and sent down to 
Short Creek Monthly Meeting for my disownment. 

In that Document they say, the "allegations" I had 
made in regard to the Address, were "disingenuous and 
untrue" — "that the doctrinal treatises of the early writers 
of the Society, who wereinsrumental in the Lord's hand 
in gathering us to be a seperate people, are in strict accor- 
dance with the Holy Scriptures^ and contain a clear exposi- 
tion of the true christian divinity* Hence we view with 
deep concern and disapprobation, the attempts which are 
made in the publication before us, to lessen the christian 
reputation of our worthy forefathers in religious pro- 
fession, and to discredit their approved writings." 

The Yearly Meeting of London, in its Epistle of Coun- 
sel of 1835, which was adopted by the Y. M. of Ohio, and 
sent down to its members — said: "Whilst thus alluding to 
our predecessors in religious profession, we would ear- 
nestly but affectionately recommend to our dear friends 
generally, but especiaUy to those ia early W^Q^the freqxwnt 
and serious perusal of their writings; replete as they are 
with instructive evidence of the sufficiency of that founda- 
tion on which it was their concern to build, and eminent- 
ly calculated, as we believe they are, to impress the mind 



28^4 rRoeEEDiNGS and principles of 

with a deep sense of the importance of the experimental 
work of religion on the heart." 

With the history of the Appeal, the reader is already 
made acquainted. And the foregoing collection of Ex- 
tracts from published writings, will show what shockingly 
unsound things they contain. The determination of the 
Conservatives seems to be, to maintain the writings as 
sound. The Friend of 8 mo. 5, 1837, contains an angry 
article on The principles of primitive Friends^ in which 
the writer says: "What superior advantages do those of 
this day possess, who seem to wish the Society to take 
their commentaries as its creed, instead of the doctrines of 
Fox and Penn, and the masterly Apology of Barclay ?" 
Here the doctrines of Fox, and Penn, and the Apology of 
Barclay are claimed as the Creed of the Soeiety. But he 
is totally mistaken in supposing that/, for one wish, my 
commentaries taken for a Creed. I wish the text of Scrip- 
ture to he accepted as it was by the Primitive Believers. 
But we have seen what doctrines are contained in the 
writings of Fox and Penn, and the masterly Apology of 
Barclay. 

The same writer goes on to say: "Do persons of this 
character come forward to tell us that the truth is not to 
be found m the excellent writings of Fox, Barclay, or 
Penn?" No, .But we say that there are errors of a most 
dangerous character in them, which are conveyed with the 
greater effect, by the truths with which they are connect- 
ed. The true or plausible parts of the writings — like 
water, or like food, become the vehicle by which the 
poison is communicatedi 

The writer proceeds: "And where is it [that is the 
truth] to be found?" — [if not in the writings of Fox, Bar- 
clay or Penn] I answer — In the Scriptures, which the 
writer did not seem to have thought of. 

But the excellence of the writings of Early Friends is 
the theme of conversation and of declamation. It is 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 285 

poured out in their Periodicals — it meets us iu the official 
documents of Saperior meetings, claiming to he owned hy 
the great Head of the Church— and it forms the subject 
of sermons, delivered under the high profession of immedi- 
ate Inspiration. But after the exhibition has been made 
oi what they contain — the presumption of declaring them 
sound — under pretension of revelation, may be seen by 
the weakest capacity. The younger part of the Society 
will be ashamed of holding such things in this enlightened 
day; and many an older Friend, will feel sick at the very 
heart, v4ien he thinks of what they have been contending 
for, and what is novf, bj' themselves, made identical with 
Quakerism, before the world. And they will lament the 
day, when they undertook to defend corruption and error, 
and to retain it in the bosom of Socio y — or to place 
Quakerism in open and avowed opposition to Primitive 
Chris-tianity — as is done in the- case of the Ordinances, 
and other points of Christian doctrine. 

I know that there are many specious reasonings, by 
which some persons are induced to think, that by a 
little management, in not pushing the reformation too fast, 
it would ultimately prevail; and that the errors for which 
Conservative Friends so earnestly contend, would, of them- 
selves, sink into oblivion and be forgotten. 

I would remind these Friends, that the experience of 
nearly two hundred years, proves the total fallacy of all 
this fond expectation. But a few years ago, upwards of 
Thirty Thousand of our fellow members, were led away 
by the very errors in question. Nor is this all- — but by 
the official acts of the Yearly Meetings, both of London 
and Ohio, the same things have been completely recog- 
nized, as essential to Quakerism. Error is not of a nature 
to die of itself, in the present &tate of the world. Two 
hundred years more might roll over, and if the Society 
lasted so long, the same things would be as tenaciously 
held as they are now : while no man could culculate the 
^extent of the mischief which might ensue. 



286 PRINCIPLES AND PHOCEEDINGS OV 

When God is pleased to raise up reformers, he does 
not send them to sew pillows under arm-holes, or to cry 
''peace, peace, when there is no peace;" or to hold out 
the idea that corruption and error are not to he exposed — 
or when thej are discovered, to apologise for them, and 
turn against such as, under a deep senge of duty, have 
been endeavouring to cleanse the camp. What reforma- 
tion would Luther and his fellow Reformers, have effect- 
ed, if thej had not exposed the corruptions of the church of 
Rome? Or how would they have sustained the cause, if 
they had shrunk from the frowns of the Conservatives of 
that day; and to keep peace with them, had recognized 
the authority of the Traditions, in which the corraptions 
in question were entrenched? 

Not only the Reformers, but the Apostles also, exposed 
corruptions, both among tine Jews and the Gentiles, and 
in the Churches. Nor did they suppress or modify the 
doctrines of the gospel, to avoid opposition. "If I yet 
please men," said the Apostle Paul, "I am not the servant 
of Christ," 

But when we reflect on the Sovereignty and Majesty 
of God, and his utter abhorrence of evil; with his power 
and will to destroy it; how can we dare to tamper with it, 
as if it might be tolerated in the Church, or were too for- 
midable to be openly assailed! The example of Achan, 
is a solemn warning in regard to concealed forhidden things. 
Here an individual, by stealth, introduced the accursed 
thing into the Camp; and buried it in his own tent. 
Though the body of the people knew nothing of the trans- 
action, they could not stand before their enemies, in con- 
sequence of the concealed transgression, and God caused 
the offence to be searched out: and an example was 
made, both of the accursed thing, and of him that intro- 
duced it. Surely this was written for our sakes, as well 
as for those who were the immediate witnesses of it. And 
if such was the displeasure of God in this case — what 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 287 

would have been the chastisement, if the rulers and peo- 
ple had forbidden the search — and when the accursed 
tiling was brought to light, they had excused the trans- 
gression, and insisted on retaining the forbidden things! 

My very soul is grieved for my former friends, when I 
reflect on the position in which they stand; and sometimes 
I tremble for the consequences which they may draw upon 
themselves. The language is clear — "His Fan is in his 
hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor; and gather 
the wheat into the garner — but the chaff he will burn with 
unquenchable fire." The chaflP — the chaff must burn — 
and if they keep it in their bosoms — they cannot shield it 
from the flames — but must expose themselves to the dan- 
ger of devouring fire. I beg them for the sake of them- 
selves, for the sake of the objects of their affection — for 
the honour, the love, and the /ear of God, not to strive 
with the Almighty — nor attempt to defend or retain that 
which he has appointed to destruction. 

In conclusion, it is proper briefly to remark, that I hav^ 
shown that the proceedings of the Friends against me, 
were unfair, dishonourable, and in violation of their own 
rules of Discipline. I have proven that these extraordin- 
ary transactions, were on account of my holding, with 
uncompromising firmness, doctrines, in regard both to 
Faith and practice, which are most clearly recorded in 
the Holy Scriptures. 

I have made it appear, by the most humiliating evi- 
dence, that the Founder of the Society, and several of his 
intimate friends, were under delusion in some of their 
highest claims to immediate revelation; and that they 
used forms of expressions, at different times and on various 
occasions, which no persons could have used, who had 
clear views of christian doctrine, and a just estimate of 
themselves. This remark will apply to printed works, as 
well as to authenticated manuscripts. And the christian 
world is now a witness, that those objectionable writings 



288 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

are defended by the Society. The Friends have made it a 
disownable offence to call, even the worst of those writ- 
ings, in question. They have officiallj declared the Doc- 
trinal Treatises of the Early Friends, (which include all 
the works from which the foregoing Extracts are taken,) 
in strict accordance with the Holy Scriptures. . And 
they have earnestly recommended those writings, without 
distinction, to the frequent and serious perusal of their 
members. Their ministers, under the profession of divine 
influence, carry out this recommendation, and endeavour 
to stop inquiry, and remove every doubt, of the unclouded 
c/earne55 of the testimony of the Early Friends. In con- 
versation, the same general course is pursued, and the 
highest censure is passed on those who point out the errors 
contained in the writings of Early Friends. 

As respects the proceedings of the Society against my- 
self-^the detales wdiich I have given were necessary, in 
order to present a history of the case; which cannot fail 
to be interesting both to the Christian public, and to such 
of the members of the Society of Friends, as are not will- 
ing to be ig7iorant of transactions, for which they must be 
responsible. As to the mere personal character — of these 
proceedings, they are now past. A gracious God, who 
saw my afflictions, and knew the cause of my sufferings, 
interposed his Hand to sustain me, so that when my ene- 
mies came upon me, they stumbled and fell. 

In the day of battle, he taught my hands to war and my 
fingers to fight — and though I have -had to stand, almost 
alone — though the powers of the Society, throughout the 
length and breadth of it, have been combined against me 
— on every position they ha,ve taken, they have been de- 
feated. The champions who have come forward, with 
confidence to the onset, have been confounded, and have 
shrunk from a fair and honourable discussion of positions 
which they had chosen themselves; and thus have given the 
strongest evidence, ih^X they knew the truth was on my side. 



fixE SOCIETY OV FlllB'NIfS' 289 

fri the dispensations of God, these things have been 
made to work together for good. They have given me a 
place in the hearts of the pious of all denominations. They 
have proven that mj opponents -were in error — and given 
additional confirmation of tlie importance of the princi- 
ples far which I have contended. And in the abundant 
evidence which has been afforded, of the unfailing care 
of the Shepherd and Bi&hap of Souls,^ my Faith and con- 
solation have been increased* 

Let not my former friend*, then grieve for me, but for 
themselves. Nor let them suppose that I shall indulge 
the feelings of malice or resentment against those who 
have done me wrong. Like Joseph's brethren, they in- 
tended it for evil, but God ha-s turned it to good — -a good 
which tkcT/ themselves m.ay participate in, to the lasting 
benefit of themselves and their children. 

In regard to the writings of the Early Friends, every 
enlightened christian, who will be at the pains of an im- 
partial examination, must see that there are errors in 
them, which are in their character, totally subversive of 
the christian . Faith. And while I have fully admitted 
that there are many members of the Society, who love 
sound doctrine and desire to hold it — Christian charity 
must suggest the inquiry — whether it is possible, for per- 
sons to be charm their views of christian doctrine, and 
duly sensible of tlie high obligations of revealed truth — 
and fully alive to the danger of error in Faith and Prac- 
tice — and at the same time to defend the highly objec- 
tionable things contained in the writings of the Early 
Friends — or wish to retain them, embodied in those writ- 
ings, without any caution to the ignorant or unsuspecting 
.readers? I say Christian charity must suggest the doubt 
of the clearness of the views of such Friends, if not of the 
soundness of their principles. For we can hardly conceive, 
that persons believing those parts of the writings of the 
Friends to be really dangerous^ could consent to their be- 
2M 



390 



PROCEEDINGS ANU FRIKCirLES OF 



ing blinded with sound doctririe, and recommended j with- 
out the least caution, or discrimination. We arc sure 
that no person of sound mind, could recommend the igno- 
rant and unsuspecting, to go into an enclosure^ with ex- 
aggerated representations of the flowers and fruits to be 
found there, if thej knew there were in that very place, 
the most ferocious beasts of prey, and the most insiduoua^, 
and venomous reptiles. No man, not mentally or morally 
deranged, v/ould recommend to his friends, and even to 
his own children, a dish, in which he knew there was 
deadly poison — and when the fact was disclosed- — be an- 
gry with the informer — contradict the statem.ent — and en- 
deavour to remove every apprehension of danger, from 
the minds of those who had taken ^m alarm. The neces- 
sary inference from these considerations is, that the 
Friends who defend the objectionable parts of the writings 
of the Early Quakers, or who wish no mark to be set upon 
them as errors — or endeavovir to persuade the members 
of the Society, that there are nO dangerous sentiments in 
those writings, must be themselves, according to their 
own representations, substantially satisfied with those 
passages which have been brought into question. If they 
admit that the form of expression is not exactly the best 
that might have been used— they must, at the same time 
conclude that if they are taken in their obvious meaning, 
no serious danger is to be apprehcDdcd. • And as there 
has been a practical demonstration, within the last fifteen 
years, that this obvious meaning has been, and still may 
be taken— tiiere connot be at heart, any serious objec- 
tion to such results. It is more charitable to suppose, 
that they believe the doctrines in question, either as ab- 
solutely right, or at least as not hurtful-^ — than to suppose 
they see the passages in their real character^ and at the 
same time directly recommend them — or give them a 
place, and a character, to fjxert tlieir whole malignant 
induence, witliout suspicion of the danger. 



THE SOCIETY OF PRIE?fD3. 291 

A verj large amount of the passages to which I allude, 
convey the very same sentiments, for which E* II* and 
his friends were condemned* This will hold, hoth in the 
affirmative^ ^nd. negative i^3.iU of the system commonly de- 
nominated Hicksism — but now proven to be original 
Quakerism. The recession of the Orthodox, from hold- 
ing the sound parts only^ of the waitings of the Early 
Friends, and the recognition, and defence of those parts 
which express the doctrines held by Eiias Hicks, is a 
complete acknowledgement of those \eTj doctrines as es- 
sential to Quakerism,, 

I do not say that the Society called Hicksites, is re- 
sponsible for all that is contained in the writings of their 
predecessors. There are sentiments in the Manuscript 
Journal of George Fox, and in some of the foregoing Ex- 
tracts, and others which might be made, which I am not 
aware they ever defended, or held — but for which the Or- 
thodox arc now completely committed. If then the Qua- • 
kerism for which the Ortliodox, (so called) now plead, is 
not identical with what is called Hicksism, one point of 
difference is to be found in tlie grossest parts of those 
writings, for which the Orthodox contend. 

Another point of ditFerence may be in the hostile atti- 
tude assumed by the latter, against the Practices of the 
Apostles and Apostolic Church, in regard to the use of 
the Ordinances. The Hicksites have merely disused the 
Ordinances — the Orthodox have made the use of them a 
p-round of disownment. In this the Hicksites have the 
fairest claims to the character of the Early Quakers. 

Perhaps, I might here mention another point of differ- 
ence. The Orthodox regard singing as highly offensive, 
and not to be allowed. From The Quaker. Vol. iii. p. 
265, it appears that a female repeated a hymn in the 
pubUc meeting in Mountpleasant, during the Hicks- 
ites' Yearly Meeting, 1828. The reporter does not 
inform us to what iuneii was sung — but we are very sure 



292 PROCEEDINOS AND PRINCIPLES 01 

that there was a time — natural or artificial. And here 
again thej have the nearest resemblance to the Early 
Friends. .George Fox once sung so loud as to drown the 
jtousic of a fiddle, (G. F. Jour. P. 1. p. 201,) and James 
Lancaster, as G. F. informs us, (Jcur. P. 1. p. 465) sung 
"with a melodious sound" through the streets of Johnston, 
while i^e preached to the people as they went along. 

In short, if the tw^ Societies do not now occupy pre- 
x:isely the same ground, it must be admitted that the Or- 
thodox have made some innovations of the usages of their 
forefathers^— and that, on the other hand, thf.7^ now come 
forward to defend passages in their old writings, which 
are too monstrous. to be tolerated for a single moment: 
and for many of which the Hicksites do not appear to be 
-committed. 

The Friends cannot therefore complain of being identified 
with the Hicksites. Objections might be raisedon the other 
side, to which some of the milder features of original 
Quakerism seem to belong: if Quakerism is not to be sub- 
jected to the absolute authority of Holy Scripture, as 
the Rule of Faith and Practice, Those among the Ortho- 
dox who cannot reconcile themselves to tliis character, 
must take the necessary means to disclaim the public Acts 
rofthe Society, and to distinguish themselves from those 
who defend the objectionable parts of the writings of 
their fore-fathers — or who would have them retained, 
without a censure fixed upon their literal and obvious 
meaning. 

I am fully convinced that the passages is question, have 
had a deeply injurious effect — in leading many from the 
Faith once delivered to the Saints — and in blunting the 
religious feelings, and diminishing the perceptions of di- 
vine truth, of many who still profess sound doctrines. The 
present state of the Society is conclusive proof of the cor- 
rectness of this opinion. A deep and radical unsound- 
iliess is withering the branches of the Society, and causing 



^ 



THE SOCIETY OF FHIENDS. 



293 



the trwnk to decay — and the end is neither doubtful nor 
perhaps very distant. 

I can see no possible remedy for the present state of 
things, but a breaking up of the whole system of delusion. 
The writings of the Early Friends must no longer be ta^ 
ken as the Standard of doctrines. The errors contained 
in theni must be freely admitted as such, and a mark set 
n^QU them as a warning to the ignorant. Unfounded pre- 
tensions to revelation must be abandoned. The Holy 
Scriptures must be accepted as the Rule of Faith and 
Practice, and their authority practically submitted to. 
The ordinances must be received,. Devotion must become 
inore lively, fervent, and practical — in private, in families, 
.and in meetings. There must be more prayer, more 
^05^e/ preaching — and the praise of God must not only be 
tolerated, but become a part of public and private devo- 
tion. The regulations x)f the ministry must be new mod- 
deled, and more effectual care be taken, to prevent igno- 
rance, or unsoundness from -being covered with the profes- 
sion of divine Inspiration. Make these changes, and the 
Society of Friends vfill have lost its present character, 
and would certainly deserve another name. 

To accomplish such an object, demands a truly Mission- 
ary Zeal. Those who are in fatal errors, are not to be 
left to themselves. The whole business of spreading the 
<x0spel of life and salvation, proceeds on a principle of 
Love. It is this that arms the missionary with courage 
and patience, to meet the dangers and endure the suffer- 
ings attendant on his labours. It is this that demands the 
efforts now making, to release the Inhabitants of India, 
x>f Africa, of Greenland, and the Islands of the Pacific 
Ocean, from the errors in which they are involved. And 
are the Friends less to be regarded as objects of Christian 
love? I earnestly invite the believers in the Lord Jesus, 
^f every denomination, to nniieiheiY prayers, and their 
christian labours, for the help of this class of their fellow 



^94 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

men. Let the Friends, as they pass the worshipping farris 
iiies, or worshipping congregations of their pious neigh- 
bours, hear the feryent prayer, ascending to the Father of 
Mercies for their recovery froiB every delusion- — and for 
their final eternal salvation. Let them meet the serious 
expostulation, in the conversation of those with whom they 
converse. Let them see the expression of christian solici- 
tude in evevy fa.ceJ:ill they are made willing to let go every 
error, and to receive the truth, as it was preached by the 
Lord Jesus and his Apostles — till instead of being the Ad- 
vocates of the errors of their predecessors, they may be 
the possessors, and zealous defenders, of the Faith once 
delivered to the Saints. 

Great efforts have recently been made by Conservative 
Friends, to regulate the consciences and abridge the lib- 
erties of their more iiberal members. Barriers are raised 
around them as high as possible, to keep them from infor- 
Tnation which might result in conviction. But they can- 
not be defended from the moral influence of the christian 
public, informed of the circumstances of the case, and 
stimulated by the love oi God, to do them good. The 
prayers of the Churches of Christ, and the public and pri- 
vate testimony to the truth, which may arise around the 
Friends, like the sound of the Trumpets of the host which 
surrounded the walls of Jericho — will give the sure pre- 
sage, that when the united voices of Christians, through 
all their tribes and divisions, shall be raised — the walls 
which have been built up broad and high, will tremble to 
their very foundation, and the boasted towers lie prostrate 
in the dust. 

God will carry on his own work. Corruption and er- 
ror must be exposed and purged away. The Kingdom of 
the Redeemer will be extended in the earth. Believers 
will still more and more unite in carrying on the work. 
And angels look down from heaven with joy, on the in- 
creasing glories of Messiah's Reign. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 295 

i-'URTHER FACTS AND REFLECTIONS RELATING TO HAFTISM-r 

The Examination of Proceedings and Principles, in- 
volved in the case before iis, would be incomplete, vtdtli- 
out a notice of a few other facts. 

While the Society wa.s pressing on its private and pub- 
lic measures against me, several articles appeared in the 
Friend, (a sort of semi-official paper published in Phila- 
delphia), evidentlj intended to prepare the Society for its 
final action upon me. While 1 had a periodical in my 
hands, the conductors of the Friend most carefully avoid- 
ed coming into open controversy with me, though I re- 
viewed, with freedom, several articles which they had 
published. After the Repository had been discontinued, 
they inserted in the Friend, the Chapter on Baptism, from 
a work which I had published twelve years ago, and of 
wliich I had secured the copy-right. That wyork had pas- 
sed through several editions, and was extensively circulat- 
ed. Notwithstanding these circumstances, -they thrust it 
gratuitously into their columns, without consulting me, 
and after they knew rny sentiments on that subject had 
changed. 

I considered such a freedom with my privileges^ 
and evidently intended to bear upon me, while the whole 
machinery of the Society was in operation, to crush, and 
to render me odious, as a departure from the rules of 
propriety. They should have respected personal rights* 
And if they wanted to say any thing on the subject of 
Baptism, they should have drawn upon their ouvi' resources^ 
ifthpy had any, . 

I wrote a letter to the Conductoi's, complaininfj of this 
proceeding, but olFcring to be satisfied, if they Avould al- 
low me to Review my own Chapter, which they had so 
officiously given to their readers, and give me the further 
opportunity, of replying to any article Vvhich they might 
publish, in opposition to the Revievr. The editor replied 
to my letter, justified what they had done; refusing either 
to allow me the liberty of the proposed Review, or to 
publish the letter in which the request was made. 

The reason for this proceeding is obvious. They were 
not desirous that their readers bhould be led into a fair 
examination of the question. It was not the doctrines of 
Jesus Christ and his Aj)ostles — but the pecidiar viczvs of 
i*^nenc^5, that they wished to establish. And they were. 



290 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCirLES OP 

not willing to meet a Scriptural discussion of the sub- 
ject. It was not Christianity^ but Quakerism^ for which 
they were concerned: and this was to be maintained by 
the arguments on one side only* I say this, because there 
could not possibly be a case, in which there would be a 
stronger claim to the admission of the other side of the 
question. 

When my disownment was effected, the two subjefcts of 
the writings of Friends, and the doctrine of Baptism, 
were chosen as themes of preaching and conversation, hav- 
ing a direct and special bearing upon me: in Order to en- 
list the sectarian prejudices of those, who might have some 
remaining favourable impressions concerning me. I Was 
stigmatized as tlie greatest enemy the Society ever had; 
and the members were charged to --have no intercourse 
with me. Those who attended my meetings were threat- 
ened with disownment. And particular pains were taken, 
to induce the pious of other denominations, to regard tne 
at an unworthy and dangerous person. The cruel design 
appeared to be formed, to make m.e an outcast from all re- 
ligious society 1 And this was done by ministers and other 
prominent members, and clothed in the garb of "religious 
concern." 

In this state of things, the Yearly Meeting of Ohio 
came on, the beginning of the 9th month, this year. 

Joseph John Gurney, well known as a highly esteemed 
writer, and a prominent minister among the Friends in 
England, landed in Philadelphia, on a religious visit to 
the United States, a few days before the commencement 
of the Yearly Meeting in Ohio. 

And here, I feel bound to pay a just tribute of respect, 
to this estimable individual. As a writer, he stands in 
the very first rank, in the Society of Friends. And al- 
though, on some points of doctrine, he has followed Bar- 
clay and Penn, rather than Saint Paul and his Inspired 
cotemporaries, yet on doctrines of Fundamental import- 
ance, and on many subordinate branches, he has made a 
wide departure from the mystical parts of the writings of 
the Early Friends. His published v/orks may be regard- 
ed as making -large and rapid strides, towards an Evan- 
gelical Reformation in the Society. On the conclusive 
Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trin- 
ity, especially in reference to the Divinity of Jesus Christ, 
and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, the doctrine of 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, 297 

the Atonement, and of Justification by Faith, the Resur- 
rection of the Dead and the Day of GeneralJudgment at 
the End of the ^Vorld, the Duty of Prayer, and the Moral 
Obligation of the Sabbath, the writings of Joseph John 
Gurney present a striking contrast with a large portion of 
the accredited writings of the Early Friends. And they 
form a prominent feature of the present excited state of 
the Society. Nor is the individual of whom I am speak- 
ing, less remarkable for amiable private character. His 
urbanity of manners, his christian charity towards other 
professors, his humanity and benevolence, secure him 
esteem wherever he is known. 

Immediately after landing in Philadelphia, he came 
directly to Mountpleasant, to attend the Yearly Meeting 
there. And (I would say) was unhappily drawn into the 
prevailing current. On First day morning, at the com- 
mencement of the Yearly Meeting, he preached, among 
other things, on the clearness of the views of the Early 
Friends, and on the doctrine of Baptism, which, he said, 
had recently been agitated among them. On this latter 
subject, he seemed particularly solicitous to lay aside the 
outward Ordinance. To etFect this object, he raised the 
question, whether the gift of the Spirit is continued in this 
day or not: saying: ''That is the question." 

It did not, however, seem to have occurred to him, that 
a^ the gift of the Spirit, did not conflict with the adminis- 
tration of Water Baptism, in the days of the Apostles, sO 
neither could it now. He could not have chosen premises 
more completely inapplicable to his purpose, or foreign 
from his conclusion, if he had taken the whole range of 
Christian doctrine. 

To prove that the gift of the Spirit is continued, he re- 
ferred to the testimony of the Apostle Peter on the Day 
of Pentecost, and showed that being filled with the Holy 
Ghost, his testimony on that occasion was the testimony 
of the Spirit. But in quoting that testimony, he passed 
over the whole of the fore part of Peter's answer to the 
converts: "Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins;" and 
began at these words: "For the Promise is to you and 
to your children, and to them that are afar off, even as 
many as the Lord our God shall call." Why was this 
garbling of the language of the Holy Ghost? Why was 
the hody of the answer left out — the very conditions on 
• 2N 



29S pnOCKEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

which the promise VGstedl Plainly because, as the word 
of Inspiration, it commanded, "repent and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins." lie knew it was impossible to explain 
away this positive command — or to admit the authority of 
the Apostle in one part of the sentence, and deny it in the 
other. There was no way to get along with the views of 
Friends^ but to garble the text; and to leave out that, on 
which the concluding clause, absolutely depended. 

Every impartial reader must see at once, that no assu- 
rance was given to the three thousand, that they should re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost, witliout Repentcince and Baptism. 
If he intended to prove that this giil; is continued without 
these conditions, he selected a text directly against him- 
self. It is the text^ and the arguments which are to be 
legitimately drawn from it, with which we are now imme- 
diately concerned. But that text, undivided, proves at 
once, the divine authority of w^ater baptism. And if the 
perpetuity of the doctrine embraced in one paxt of the 
sentence, be insisted on — >the perpetuity of the former, 
and that on which the latter depended, must be granted 
also. \^ the promise then held out to the three thousand, 
be claimed as descending to us — it must be on the same 
grounds, and with the same clearly expressed qualifica- 
tions. 

He also quoted Eph. 4. 5: "0ns Lord, one Faith, one 
Baptism;" applying the passage to the Baptism of the 
Spirit. To this construction and inference there are 
several insuperable objections. 

The term baptism, w^ithout something in the context, or 
in the nature of the subject to which it is applied, to turn 
it from its natural import, literally means an outward act. 

But there is nothing in the' context, nor in the nature 
of the subject, to turn the word from its natural and hteral 
meaning. 

Therefore the literal meaning is to be taken. 

Again: The Apostle spoke offacts^ and in the present 
tense. He did not say. Though there are various baptisms, 
there is but one really necessary. And if he had, it 
would have been proper that he should have told which 
it was that was necessary. But from the construction of 
the passage, if the word necessary,, orauy other qualifying- 
term be applied to baptism, it must also be understood as 
applied io the other objects mentioned in the icjiU Aa 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. S9D 

if he should have said, there is only one Lord, one Faith, 

one Baptism, one God and Father of all — necessary 

in^piying that, in point of fact, there was a plurality of all 
these — but only one of each was essential. The absurdity 
of such a perversion of the text, must be apparent to all. 

The Apostles then made a simple and plain declaration, 
positively irue in point of fact. In the literal meaning of 
t'.ie term, there was emphatically one baptism, which was 
practiced in the Church; carefully distinguished from 
tiie washing of the Jews, and from the baptism of John; 
(Acts 19, 1—5) and equall}- guarded from every perversion, 
which might arise from attaching <any thing to it, from 
the personal character of the individuals by whom it was 
administerjd. (see 1, Cor. 1). If therefore, the term be 
here taken in its figurative, as well as literal meaning, 
instead of proving that the baptism of the Spirit was the 
one baptism — it would prove that both this, and the Bap- 
tism of Persecution or Suffering, had ceased. 

For the outward baptism being in practice at the time, 
if there was but one, in any and in ev^ery sense of the word, 
that must be the one. And as the Apostle had himself, 
recently enforced outward baptism, on some of the very 
persons to whom lie then wrote, the Friends must prove 
that it had bsen laid aside, before they can possibly get 
over recognizing this, as the one baptism. But this is im- 
pobible for them to do. They must then give up the fig- 
urative meanings of the word, or the text will, in their 
very teeth, prove that the baptism of the Spirit and the 
baptism of SufTering, had both ceased at the time the 
Apostle wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians. 

But I take it in its literal meaning; and thus am free 
from drawing any such conclusions. It was plainly the 
common Christian baptism, by which they had all been 
formally united to the one visible Body — the Church, and 
had all professed the one common Faith in the one Lord, 
of which the Apostle was speaking. Take the text, sim- 
ple and literally as it stands, and all is clear and har- 
monious. Give it the construction for which the Friends 
contend, and the whole passage is thrown into confusion — 
and after all, their object is totally defeated. 

He quoted, 1 Cor. 12, 13. "For by one spirit, are we all 
baptized into one body," &:c. But it would be perfectly 
preposterous, to carry out this figurative use of the^term, 
tc> any other result, as applied to us, than was intended, a» 



300 PRINCIPLES AND PROCJPJEDIN'GS Off 

applied to tlieni. But it had no such meaning or effect 
with the Corinthians, as to produce the disuse of water 
Baptism- Let J. J. G. and the Friends, show, that the 
passage was so understood bj the early christians, or so 
intended by the Apostle, if they wish to draAV from it 
any such conclusion, as to us. But while it remains an ac- 
knowledged historical /ad, that water baptism, was then, 
and continued in successive ages to be, practiced, the dis- 
use of baptism can no more be inferred from it for w?,than 
it was for them. 

The passage contains a beautiful figurative use of the 
term, to show the spiritual^ as well as formal relation in 
which they stood. And this figure derived all its beauty, 
and all its force, from the well known ceremony to which 
it alluded. 

In the evening he introduced the subject of Baptism by 
a reference to the commission, recorded in Matt. 28, 19, 
20, &:c. And he denied that it had "any reference what- 
ever to a mere outward ceremony." 

The reasons which he gave for this bold assertion, were, 
That our Lord had used the term in a spiritual sense; as 
when he spoke of the cup which he should drink of, and 
the Baptism, with which he should be baptized — and 
^len he told them that they should be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost, &.c. 

in regard to the Cup, and the Baptism spoken of to the 
sons of Zebedee, it will appear by what immediately pre- 
cedes it, Matt. 30, 18, 19: that he was speaking oi persecu- 
tion, "The Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief 
priest, and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him 
to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles, to mock, 
and to scourge, and to crucify him." And so far as his 
disciples were to partake of this baptism, they were to be 
the baptized, and not the baptizers. To suppose that this 
was the baptism intended in the commission, would be to 
change the whole character of the Gospel; and represent 
the Apostles as sent out into the world, to baptize the na- 
tions with bloody instead of water. 

On the baptism of the Holy Ghost, he admitted that it 
was not strictly the work of man ; but that man w^as em- 
powered to perform it. 

This is assertion without proof. Let J. J. G. or any 
other Friend, show if they can, that man was either em- 
powered to baptize with God, (for the Holy Ghost is God, 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 301 

:jirid J, J. G. fully admits it), or let tbem prove by plain 
ScripLUie, that any man ever did administer this baptism. 
By the concurrent testimonies of the Prophet Joel and 
the Apostle Peter, it is God that pours out the Spirit. 
And it is the Risen and Glorified Redeemer, to whom this 
oifice belongs. And John, his fore-runner, ma^es it pe- 
culiar to him — and a conclusive evidence of his Sonship, 
To suppose that this office of the 8on of God, is delegated 
to men, is as preposterous as to suppose his character of 
Deity is also delegated. In fact, the arguments made use 
of bj the Friends, will just as soon prove the one as the 
other. 

Job Scott, in whose track J. J. G followed in this par- 
ticular, said that man, as man, could not baptize with the 
Holy Ghost — neither could he, merely as man, preach the 
Gospel. The proposition, he said, was just as true, that 
no man could preach the Gospel, as that no man could 
baptize with the Holy Ghost. Merely as man he could 
do neither. But by divine assistance he could, and did, 
da both. 

The fallacy of this mode of reasoning will be readily 
seen, by comparing it with an argument formed on pre- 
ciselj^ the same principles, from an illustration 1 once 
heard from another friend, in his preaching. He said 
that "man, as man, could no more preach the Gospel than 
he could create a world." 

Take then the two propositions and form an argument 
from each* 

Manas man, can no more preach the Gospel than he 
can baptize with the Holy Ghost. 

But he is empowered to preach the Gospel. 

Therefore he can baptize with the Holy Ghost. 

This is just the substance of Job Scott's argument — and 
the idea which others after him seem to intend to convey. 
But without taking the trouble, to show the departure 
from the rules of reasoning, which there is in the structure 
of the argument, 1 will give another constructed exactly 
like it. 

Man, as man, can no more preach the Gospel than he 
• can create a world. 

But he is empowered to preach the Gospel. 

Therefore he can create a world. 

The conclusion is just as logical in the one case as in 
the other: and both are equally unwarranted by Scripture 
and bv reason. 



302 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES 01' 

The disciples clearly understood the commission to re- 
late to Water Baptism — for so they carried it into effect. 
But the Friends are driven to suppose, that they were ac- 
tually empowered, as well as commissioned, to baptize 
with the Holy Ghost — and yet, notwithstanding this ex- 
traordinary endowment — were totally mistaken, and fell 
into the unaccountable error, of baptizing with Water, in- 
stead of the Spirit! 

On the day of Pentecost, it was the Risen Saviour that 
shed forth the Spirit, or in other words, administered the 
Baptism of the Holy Ghost, In the case of Cornelius and 
his household, Peter said that "God gave unto them, the 
like gifts, as he did unto us in the beginning." In the 
case of the Samaritans, the Apostles Peter and John pray- 
ed., that they might receive the Holy Ghost. These, and 
other testimonies which might be mentioned^ are conclu- 
sive, that it is the Son^in his character as God, that sheds 
on us, the Holy Ghost, 

The idea of Baptizing by preaching, is strictly a Qua- 
ker doctrine. But if Peter did not baptize the three thou- 
sand by preaching, (which it is very clear that he did not, 
for they were neither baptized with water nor by the 
Spirit, when they inquired. What shall we do?) the 
Friends might quietly give up the pre^ ension of doing it. 
And as there is no such a term in the New Testament, as 
a Baptizing ministry, because there was nothing to which 
such a term could apply, the Friends can have no occasion 
to invent such an epithet, unless they have also invented 
a ministry which the Apostles had not. But as it is prov- 
ed that the baptism which they could administer by 
preaching, could not be that of the Spirit — it could only 
be the baptism of suffering, in some of its modifications. 

But to return to J. J. G's. second meeting. In ex- 
pounding the Commission, he seemed to have totally for- 
gotten the favorite doctrine of the Friends, that there is 
but one baptism. For, whether he intended it or not, he 
certainly treated the subject, as embracing three distinct 
and separate baptisms. He first undertook to explain what 
it was, to be baptized into the name of the Father. And 
this he did at some considerable length. And then he in- 
vited the meeting, to "Come and be Baptized into the 
Name of the Fathef." He next proceeded to explain the 
Baptism into the name of the Son; and here he introduc- 
ed the doctrine of the Atonement, and of Faith in a cru- 



THE SCf(JiETY OF FIllEKDSr 303 

cified Saviour. And then lie invited his hearers, to "Come 
and be Baptized into the name of the Son." After this, 
he proceeded to explain what it was to be baptized into 
the name of the Spirit, and went into the description of 
his office in our Conversion, Faith, and Sanctitication: 
and called upon the congregation, to "Come and be Bap- 
tized into the name of the Spirit." From the very ground 
on which he set out, the idea was clearly conveyed, that 
he considered himself, as the baptizcr into these three bap- 
tims. 

On the following Fifth day, he preached another Ser- 
mon, in which he said: "The only water baptism which 
is necessary, under the glorious gospc^l dispensation, is the 
baptism with tearsJ^^' 

It is deeply affecting to see such efforts, to lay waste the 
plain and undeniable doctrines of Jesus Christ and his 
Apostles, and the clearly established order of the Church; 
and to substitute for them, almost any wild or crude opin- 
ion, that imagination can suggest. 

In the meeting on First day morning, 9 mo. 3rd, J. J. 
Gurney said^ while speaking on the leading doctrines of 
Christianity, that the Early Friends ''alwai/s maintained 
a clear testimony to these doctrines." And in the even- 
ing of the same day, he said, that "by a measure of the 
same Spirit, by which the Apostles w^ere inspired, (though 
a smaller measure than the Apostles had), they were en- 
able to maintain a clear, unclouded testimony to those 
doctrines." Being present at these meetings, and know- 
ing the pains which the Friends had taken, to enlist the 
prejudices of their own members, and the feelings of the 
community at large, in reference to the two subjects above 
mentioned — and to give them a direct bearing on the 
position which I now occupy, before the members of that 
Society, and the Christian world — 1 felt myself called 
upon, publicly to meet, both the statements which he had 
made, and the doctrines he had delivered, on these two 
points. 

Accordingly I wrote to him the next dayi expressing 
my surprise and regret at many of his remarks; the obvi- 
ous tendency of which was, in my apprehension, to pre- 
vent a truly christian reformation in the Society of 
Friends. But I called his attention more particularly to 
the two subjects above mentioned. In reference to these,, 
I said: 



304 rRO€EEr>iNGs and principles of 

"The first is, the view which thou presented, in both 
meetings, of the writings of the Early Members of the 
Society of Friends* I understood thee to say, that they 
always maintained a clear testimony to the great doctrines 
of Christianity — and that they were enabled to maintain 
siclear^ unclouded testimony to those doctrines. Thou 
hast said in reply to Truth Vindicated, (I • quote merely 
from memory), that error is never more dangerous than 
when mixed with undeniable truths — that it resembles 
J00Z50H mixed with wholesome food, which has occasioned 
the death of many an unsuspecting individual. And we 
may readily perceiv^e the danger of recommending, as safe 
and excellent, a dish containing deadly poison ; however 
abundant or fair in appearance, the food itself may be. I 
therefore invite thee to a public examination of the sub- 
ject. And I oifer to prove, that though the writings of 
the Early Members of the Society of Friends, may contain 
many excellent examples and sentiments, (which I have 
always most freely admitted and maintained), there are 
in them sentiments or forms of expression, which are cal- 
culated to lay waste the authority of the Holy Scriptures, 
and to subvert the most important doctrines of Christiani- 
ty. The subject is one of incalculable importance. The 
passages to which I allude, have produced, and are still 
producing, the most unhappy consequences. And the 
more they are directly or indirectly recommended, the 
more those consequences may be increased. I therefore 
call upon thee, for the sake of the Faith once delivered 
to the saints — for the regard which we are bound to have 
for the honour of God, and the salvation of souls, to meet 
a public examination of the subject, which thou hast 
gratuitously brought to the notice of two, large and mix- 
ed assemblies. And I pledge myself, either to show, that 
there are, in those writings, sentiments of a highly objec- 
tionable and dangerous character — or publicly to retract 
every thing that I have said in the way of calling them in 
question. 

"The second subject, to which I wish to call thy atten- 
tioe, is that of Baptism. The Society of Friends has now 
made it a matter of disownment, for its members to receive 
Water Baptism. And from the manner in which thou 
introduced the subject, into both the sermons to which I 
have already alluded, I must regard thee as thoroughly 
uniting in these views of the Society. You have taken a 



1 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS^ 305 

position, in relation to the apostolic Church, which no 
other Society ever dared to take. You now occupy, not 
the ground of defence, but of attack. You are hearing a 
testimony against the practice — and exercising the infiU' 
ence of thejninisiri/, aad the disowing power of the Society 
for its suppression. In such a state of things, the best 
interest of the Society, and the cause of Truth, demand a 
fair and impartial examination of the subject, 

"From the peculiar circumstances in which I stand, and 
from the ground taken by the Society of Friends, my 
place, in reference to this doctrine, is that of Defence*— 
But if thou should think that this would afford me any 
peculiar advantages, I will waive them for the sake of an 
investigation. 1 do therefore call upon thee, for a public 
examination of the doctrine of Baptism, taking the Holy 
Scriptures as the Rule of Decision: and offering thee 
the choice, either of the offensive or a'e/tn^/ue position.* 
In either case, I will undertake to prove, that Water 
Baptism was introduced by the Apostles into the Chris- 
tian Church— that this was done in their apostolic ofiice — 
in the name of Jesus Christ, and under the immediate in- 
fluence of the Holy Spirit- — and that their authority is 
conclusive. 

"I am avv^are of thy superior talents and acquirement?, 
and of the advantages wliich thou hast, in the advice and 
aid of a large number of thy friends, yet I am not thereby 
in the least intimidated. My object is the maintenance 
of the Truth, and of this only, Relj'ing solely on the 
Word of God, and the present help of his blessed Spirit, I 
am willing to march directly to the subject. And 1 ask 
thee, my honoured friend, to meet me there, that, if pos- 
sible, w^e may be brought to unite harmoniously in pro- 
moting a revival of "Primitive Christianity." 

"It is due to thee to know, that some of the sentiments 
contained in thy published writings, have given offence to 
many prominent members of the Society, as not in accord- 
ance with the writings of Ea.rly Friends, And further, 
that a report has been circulated in this coimtry, that 
thou hast made some acknowledgments, which have given 
satisfaction. Both the Society, and the Chiistian public 
should know, Mdiether there is any foundation for this re- 



*Thatis, either io attack Vae doctrines whicli I hold, or to defend 
that which is hsld by hihisclfand Ihe Friends, 

20 



S06 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

port or not. And that'thc inquiry may not be left in a 
vague and indefinite way, I take the liberty of asking, if 
thou hast ever retracted thy sentiments, as contained in 
thy Essays on Christianity, thy Portable Evidences, and 
other works — !• On the conclusive authority of the Holy 
Scriptures. 2. On the Doctrine of the Trinity, the Di- 
vinity of Jesus Christ, and the Personality of the Holy 
Spirit. 3. On the Resurrection of the Body, and the 
Day of Judgment. 4. On the doctrine of Justilication* 
5. On Prayer* G. On the Moral Obligation of the Sab- 
bath. 

"An early reply to these inquiries is respectfully re- 
quested. In regard to the invitation to discuss the two 
subjectsof the writings of Friends, and the doctrine of 
Baptism, it will be necessary to give me information by 
eight o'clock to-morrow morning, whether it is accepted 
or not, that the necessary preliminary arrangements may 
be mutually agreed upon. 

I am with much esteem thy friend, 

E. BATES." 

To this letter, he returned the following answer.- 

"Mountpleasant, 9 yTzo., 4th 1837. 
Elisha Bates: 

Dear friend — Tlie views Vv^iich I was led to express 
in the discourse to which thy letter alludes, tire those 
which we once held in common, both as it regards funda- 
mental doctrine, and as it respects the distinguishing re- 
ligious principles of Friends. No change v*^hatever that 
I am aware of has taken place in my opinions, and most 
heartily do I regret and deplore the change which has 
taken place in thee, and which has been the means of 
separating thee from a body of Christians, to which thou 
wast, at one time, so firmly attached. 

"If I stated any thing yesterday at vairience from the 
acknowledged principles of that body— -principles which I 
hold to be true and scriptural — I am of course amenable 
to the Society: but I must entirely decline entering into 
any discussion on the subjects which were adverted to by 
me in ministrj^, with any other persons. 
With much love to thyself and thy family 

I am thy friend and well-wisher, 

J. J. GITRNEY.. 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 307 

''P. S. The Report mentioned by thee respecting my 
writings, is wholly without foundation — no concession of 
the kind alluded to having either been made or asked for. 

"I hope to be able to call upon thee and thy children 
before I leave this place." 

To this I immediately replied in another letter, regret- 
ting his conclusion to dechne the proposed discussion — and 
giving him. to understand that I ^considered the usage o£ 
the Early Friends, and of distinguished theologians of the 
present day, in this country at least, was against him, in 
shrinking, (in all the circumstances of the case), from the 
discussion. I told him that the whole manner in which 
he had treated the subjects in question, "had a m.ost obvi- 
ous allusion to me. * * * When, therefore, thou, as the 
champion for the views of the Society, hast immediately 
taken hold on the two subjects, of Baptism and the Writ- 
ings of Fiicnds, and brought them prominently to the 
notice of the Christian public, and in a way directly to 
bear upon me, thou must not be surprised that 1 should 
promptly call thee to a public examination of the posi- 
tions tliou hast advanced. It would have been an act of 
cowardice on my part, unworthy of the cause for which I 
have suffered so much, and for which I am bound to con- 
tend, if I had not called for investigation." 

And after some free remarks on the position in which 
he had placed himself, 1 informed him that I should deliv- 
er a Lecture on Baptism, in the Presbyterian Meeting 
House, the next Fifth day, at 3 o'clock: in which I should 
show, that the Early Friends did not, always, maintain a 
CLEAR, UNCLOUDED testimony to the great doctrines of 
Christianity. And as I should probably use both his 
name and his sentiments with freedom, I respectfully in- 
vited him to attend: informing him that if he should wish 
to be heard, I would most readily enter into arrangements 
with him for that purpose. To this letter no reply was 
given. 

Now I ask, if the inferrence to be drawn from these 
fa<;ts is not fair., that the Friends, and especially those 
who have thrown themselves into collision with me, do 
know that they cannot stand the test of fair and Scriptu- 
ral examination? I have said enough to prove the utter 
inconsistency of the high character of the writings of the 
Early Friends. And facts are daily proving that their 



303 PROCEEDINGS AND PRINCIPLES OF 

most distingalahcd adv^ocates are perfectly aware, that the 
ground on which they stand is hollow. 

On the other subject, I do not hesitate to say, that the- 
present leaders of the Society, knozv, that Water Baptism 
was taught and enforced by the Apostles — that it harmon- 
ized with the highest spirituality the Church, or any 
members of it ever enjoyed upon earth — that it was not 
laid aside by the Apostles, nor by their cotemporaries or 
immediate successors. The official agents of the Society, 
after tw^o weeks consideration of the question, have de- 
clared that we need not go any further back, for the prin- 
ciple of the Friends, than to the rise of the Society. They 
have admitted that the censure passed upon me in the 
case, applied no less to all the Apostles, and to the whole 
Christian Church, than to me. And one of them acknow- 
ledged, that if the Apostle Paul, could now be transferred 
into the Society, just as he was in his life time, they would 
disown HIM ! ! 

I have no doubt, that many of the Friends, will lay the 
r3sponsibi]ity of these things, on the individuals themselves. 
But if a body of men is responsible for its official agents, 
unless their transactions are officially disclaimed — then 
the Society of Friends is fully responsible for these things. 

In addition to this, it is proved in the very face of the 
champions of the Society, that they are out of the doc- 
trine and practice of the Apostles, and by necessary con- 
sequence, they are out of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. 

How fearful then is an open and continued rebellion 
against him, of whom it w as said. Let all the angels of 
God worship Him! And who declared: "Ye are my 
friends, if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you.'- Now 
if the Friends should determine, to hold the doctrine of 
George Fox and his cotemporaries, rather than those of 
the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, how dreadful will be the 
consequences! And the more they depreciate the things 
in question, and represent them as little — or unimportant, 
the more they must necessarily condemn themselves: first 
for so characterizing institutions, which were appointed by 
the Lord, and so solemnly taught and enforced by his 
Apostles— and secondly, for refusing a service, which they 
themselves represent as so very easy to be performed. 

"Having tasted the terrors of the Lord we persuade 
men." I beseech my former friends, to lay down the 
pride of opinion — to let go the prejudice of education — to 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 309 

disregard the frowns of Conservative Friends, and the 
scorn and contempt of the unconverted — and to be bap- 
tized, as was the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and as 
were the many thousands of believers, who gladly receiv- 
ed the Avords of the inspired ministers of Jesus Christ. 

I reverently thank God, and magnify his mercy and 
goodness, for the light he has been pleased to shed upon 
my own mind — for the support he has given me under the 
pressure of peculiar trials — and for the consolations of the 
Gospel, with v/hich, again a,nd again, he has replenished 
my soul. 

The humble hope — the blessed assurance, which he has 
given me, of his redeeming Love, through Jesus Christ, is 
more to me than all the world. The afflictions of the pre- 
sent time, v/hich are but for a moment, are not worthy to 
be compared with the glory which shall be revealed. 

But this is not all: for the same Good Hand has been 
at work, in other hearts a.s well as mine. And some of 
these have been made not only my companions in tribula- 
tion — but also in the consolations of the Gospel. Trac- 
ing his Providence in wider circles of his M^orks, I have 
found brethren and sisters in Christ, Avhen I had expect- 
ed to feel as a stranger and a pilgrim in the earth. 

The Church universal, is now widely spread: the living 
members of it, are experiencing increasing degrees of the 
Unity of the Spirit. Many are running to and fro, and 
knowledge is increasing. Though iniquity still abounds, 
many are turning from darkness to light, and from the 
powerof satan to God. The Gospel is penetrating into 
regions where the name of Christ was never heard. And 
every thing around us, bears testimony to the progress of a 
work of God. 

But there is no part of the human family, for which I 
feel a more intense solicitude, than I do for the Society of 
Friends. My prayers are not only for those who, in va- 
rious degrees, unite with me on the points which have 
been brought into discussion — but for those also, who have 
been my opposers and persecutors. I earnestly desire 
that the eyes of the blind may be opened, and the ears of 
the deaf unstopped; that the lame may leap as an hart, 
and the tongue of the dumb sing. 



NOTE. 

. As an apology for the lack of methodical arrangementy 
and grammatical accuracy, in the foregoing Examination^ 
&c. it may be proper to state, that it has been chiefly 
written, as the successive portions have gone into the prin- 
ter's hands. 

In the beginning, I intended to publish sundry letters 
and papers, which are in my possession, as having an im- 
mediate relation to the case in hand, and accordingly 
made some reference to them, in the fore part of the v>^ork. 
But as they would considerably increase the size and ex- 
pense of the book, they are omitted. Enough has been 
given, to shew tiie nature of the controversy which has 
been forced upon me, the extent of the combination which 
was formed by the Friends, the unfairness of their pro- 
ceedings, and the unsoundness of the doctrines for which 
they are contending. The difficulty has not been for the 
want of materials, but to give the most important of theroy 
in the smallest compass. In attempting this, I have left 
out a large amount of evidence, of the unkindness, unfair- 
ness, and unsoundness of the Friends, and I ma2/ have in- 
serted some things, which might have been spared. 

I ask no more than a reasonable allowance, for the pe- 
culiar difficulties of the situation, in which I have been 
placed. And this, I am sure, the enhghtened and pious 
part of the community will readily grant. 

I had entertained some idea, of appending to this '"Ex- 
amination," a Review of the ''Doctrines of Friends." But 
on more mature reflection, I have concluded to decline it. 
A close Review of that work,vfOuld require a volume of 
considerable size. And a partial correction of passages 
with which I am dissatisfied, might be construed into an 
approval of all, to v/hich special objections were not 
made. In some parts, it would require arguments to re- 
fute error — in others, extended criticisms to distinguish 
between a correct principle, and an incorrect modification 
of it. 

On the whole, I have concluded to refer the Christian 
public, to the foregoing work, to the "Refutation," the 
"Appeal," the "Letter" on Baptism, and the last ten num- 
bers of the "Miscellaneous Repository," as a general cor- 
rection of my former publications: leaving any further 
work on the subjects alluded to, entirely to the Providence 
of God. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION Page iii 
Formation of the Society vi 

Its Church Government xi 

Chapter 1 21 

Hicksite controversy 22 

Course pursued by the author 23 

Proposes to visit G. Britain 25 

Preaches the Resurrection 2^ 

Writes an Address 27 

Sets out to England 29 

Returns home 31 

Proceedings in London Y. M. 33 

In N. E. and O. 37 

Document ofl835 38 

Reviewed 41 

B. W. Ladd's Letter 58 

Reviewed 60 

Chapter II 80 

Interview with C. O. 81 

With B. W. L. 83 

Proceedings against author 84 

Standards of Doctrines 88 

Friends' Library 89 

E, B. writes his V indication 90 

Second visit to England 91 

Y. Meeting in London 93 

G. Jones's Tracts 94 

Proceedings in England 98 

Chapter 1 11 107 
Proceedings in Ohio 107 
Document issued 108 
Author returns home 112 
Document thrown aside 113 
The Refutation published 113 
Meeting for Sufferings and 
individuals concerned call- 
ed to in^^estigation 114 



Chapter IV 



6 8 *^ 116 



Grounds taken by Conserva- 
tives 116 
Cause for publishing Appeal 117 
Author Baptized 118 
Correspondence with J. Fos- 
ter, S.Gurney,(^G.Stacey 119 
Document issued by Morn- 
ing Meeting 119 
Proceedings upon it 121 
Charges taken up 122 
Irregularities of proceedings 123 
Letter of Resignation 125 

Chapter V 133 
Proceedings of Monthly 

Meeting 133 

Visits of the Committee 185 

New Charges taken up 140 

Further visits of committee 148 

Chapi-er VI 152 

Visit of commit, continued J52 

Committee's report 162 

Paper of disownment 163 

Brief Review ^164 



Chapter VIII 

Defence of the Appeal 



175 



Chapter IX 219 

Same subject continued, in 
Reply toG. R. andS.T. 



Chapter X 

Errors in printed works 



239 
239' 



Reflections on extracts, &c. 281 
Further facts and reflections 
relating to Baptism 295 

The Friend 295 

Joseph John Gurncy 296 

, Correspondence with him 303 
Note 311 












J^ 



.c^' 



■=/."' 









X^-- 



X 



^ ^<^ 



1 V j-Js 



^;^^:^^^^^ 



0- 



.H 






-^■-^.^.^^ 






s -^ ' / ^ Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
i^f^Sk Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
"^ " Treatment Date: April 2006 

Preservationlechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



■/^ 



.,^^- ^% 



"^A v^' 



.-^^ 



> y 



0' 









^^.^' 



■A 



.^^ -^c^. 




>0 c 



^'^^^^■^ ^> 






v,'\^>: 



^S- . 



^-s , \ I B 



'^.. 






i"^' ''A%iA'o % 



A 



',''%. 






' r 









^.,.'^^ v^^' 






% 






o 0' 



'^^-X 



:^^ 



^^ : 



.xV ./^, 



^.. ^.-^^ 



O, ^ 






■^^ ^' 



'€£^- 4'::'-^^^-. 



